Microsoft will release details of a long-delayed update to its content protection technology Monday, offering new features aimed at bringing piracy-proof digital content to mobile devices and home networks.
Microsoft Unveils New Antipiracy Tools
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
“This release of technology really enables all kinds of new scenarios that are emerging now,” said Jason Reindorp, a group manager in Microsoft’s Windows digital media unit.
I only see one scenario here: corporations taking freedom away from end users. DRM does *nothing* to benefit users, on the contrary: it’s a way to let some one else cripple and control their rights. But comming from Microsoft, all Joe users around the world will embrace it happily.
“Microsoft is betting that the steady release of new content protection technology will help its audio and video formats become standard ways of distributing digital music and films, in turn, keeping people purchasing and using the Windows operating system and associated products.”
Nice definition of “standards” they have. It sounds more like vendor lock in to me… but then again, it’s Microsoft we are talking about, so no surprise.
I dont like the sound of this… Not that I am too worried, since there will be ways hack this sort of technology. This is going to do nothing but be a hassle when I am trying to share music and videos between different devices or even just record onto my computer. So once all this DRM crap comes into place, does that mean that I can FINALLY make my legal back up copy for my cds and DVDs without resorting to annoying work arounds?
Well, let’s hope it get’s hacked real soon (like… Tuesday :-)). I’m against DRM in general, and especially if it’s a Microsoft – “standard”. If the industry wants DRM, it has to be “OpenDRM” or something like this.
After iTunes, maybe Jon Lech Johansen needs a new hobby… 😉
Exactly! The harder they try, the more intelligent solutions people will keep coming up with. Here’s hoping Jon & others like him will take up the challenge.
…until Joe Consumer buys a brand spanking new HDTV and a brand spanking new HDTV VCR (or whatever they’ll call them) and he goes to hit ‘record’ and nothing happens. That’s what you get when you don’t defend your fair use rights (or any rights), they get taken away from you.
You people are really sick– The industry has every right to protect their work! Whether it be music, software or whatever. They create it, they work for it, so they have the right to defend their rights as well. How would you feel if you were, for instance, a butcher and everyone just entered your little shop, took your burgers, and just walked out, without a single payment? You’d call the cops, place camera’s, etc etc.
This is no different.
Y’all are just scared you might just have to actually PAY for what you use… Hoirrific thought, ain’t it?
I have never really been able to stick with linux on my desktop and I think alot of other people are the same. If they do release some nasty DRM stuff though, hopefully it will be the kick in the arse we need to switch over.
How do you feel if you buy some meat but can’t cook it in your oven but only with some specific new and expensive material that accepts it ?
I don’t think most people’s concerns are that creators have no right to protect their work. Most concerns are:
1) DRM helps reduce “fair use” for consumers (cannot play DVD’s that I’ve paid for on Linux for eg);
2) DRM helps certain corporations maintain their market share instead of competing to offer the best product to consumers. As far as I’m concerned, it’s more of a marketshare tool than anything else;
3) It’s proprietary and not known if spyware, back-doors etc are in the code;
4) It doesn’t work – consider all the effort that went into the recent iTunes release, and it was broken within days / hours by a single person. Consumers have to sudsidise this nonsense. “Piracy proof” files do not exist;
5) The implicit assumption that consumers are all thieves (yes, a lot of them are, but not all);
For all the fuss and justification about “protecting creators rights”, DRM just doesn’t work.
never worked and never will.
These copy protections are illegal themselves imho, the Belgian magazine “Test aankoop” (they test products and tell the people in the articles which are good and not, and they try to protect the consumer rights…)
tried to bring the record industries in court because of these illegal copy protections. A lot of copy protected cd’s can’t be played in car radio’s, older or less capable cd players, etc. That itself is a real shame. But offcourse they refer to the 1 legal copy we are allowed to make, copy protections hold us away from that right.
I have nothing against music bands, record labels to try protect their products from being distributed for free. But they should do it within the law of every country they sell in. Is our law actually of any meaning to these big companies?
“ou people are really sick– The industry has every right to protect their work! Whether it be music, software or whatever. They create it, they work for it, so they have the right to defend their rights as well. How would you feel if you were, for instance, a butcher and everyone just entered your little shop, took your burgers, and just walked out, without a single payment? You’d call the cops, place camera’s, etc etc.
This is no different.”
It is entirely different, because it will only benefit the biggest companies. Look at what they did with DVD: right now, I am in Japan, and cannot read any dvd from here. If these people would have conceived the pc, they would have made cd rom for french, for english, etc… all incompatible.
Do you actually think the DRM will benefit to anyone except a bunch of big companies ?
The problem here is not sickos that don’t want to pay; it is these are supposedly anti-piracy devices and you can bet within a month of them being made public they will be defeated by the pirate or other groups and hence as anti-piracy measures be useless.
All that will be left is the defeating of ‘fair use’ and the complication of what Joe Average has to do to watch or listen to material they legitimately bought.
And gee shucks, if it means that people can’t use Linux or other systems that don’t suckle from Microsoft’s teat to watch/listen to their digital media then that would be a purely accidental side effect of course.
To all those saying “it will be hacked anyway”: You’re the ones making it easy for the megacorps pushing “fair use” into the criminal sector.
WAKE UP!
TCPA isn’t a thing of a far-fetched future. It isn’t just another step in the protected – hacked circle. It is an all-important step to get DRM to some kind of acceptance, and if they manage that (they’re already 95% there), your “freedom” will die with the last pre-DRM motherboard.
There is only unlimited freedom and unlimited censorship. There is no in-between in the long run. Do you trust the megacorps and your government to judge what information is suited for you? If not, then stand up and take action, instead of waiting for the next hack until they cease to come.
Most of you have elected a politician to represent you in parliament, committees etc. – contact your representative and convince him. If he can’t be convinced, find a representative who can be. Democracy is more than placing a vote every four years or so.
@ Andrew D:
This is hardly the place to vent your anger. Contact the moderators by e-mail, will you?
I, for one, want it to work. One of the barriers to people trying alternatives (I don’t mean “liking”, just *trying*) to monopolist software is piracy. As long as they can have it free, they don’t care, although what they are doing is illegal and it affects negatively the alternatives.
I don’t just mean it’s bad for free software. Alternatives are much more than that. People will get a pirated copy of Photoshop when they can allow themselves paint shop pro. Same thing for office suites like Gobe Productive or Star Office, mail clients like eudora or pegasus mail or shareware games instead of the 80 euros worth games (at least here in Spain) like UT2004.
Piracy being down would mean a diversification in software that would allow small enterprises to subsist, even under the shadow of the big corporations like MS, Adobe, Macromedia, etc.
I really hope they finally have something that really works! It’s just too easy to copy stuff, and most people probably don’t even realise that they’re doing it.
Either get it legally for free from bands that don’t charge money, developers that don’t charge for their software, or just pay for the ‘better’ stuff. Give everyone a fair chance!
It is an all-important step to get DRM to some kind of acceptance, and if they manage that (they’re already 95% there), your “freedom” will die with the last pre-DRM motherboard.
Lay off the crack dude. TCPA etc. is really exciting stuff, an enabler, an “empowerer.” If the big corporations use it so people can’t easilly have illegal access to say Britney Spears or Disney flicks, than I see it as a major win for the Human race, as fewer folks will be exposed to that garbage.
You also seem to be forgetting the fact that the technology can and will be used by ordinary people to protect their own digital assets, but I’m quite sure that you’re a little too short sighted to have thought of that.
There is only unlimited freedom and unlimited censorship.
Wow. You need therapy.
Do you trust the megacorps and your government to judge what information is suited for you?
I can’t say that I trust anyone fully, but man, you take the cake! I should trust your ravings over everything I’ve learned about this technology? As if. My next computers will be IBMs with their new embedded security subsystem (based on the latest TCG standards), FWTW.
Yet another person who can’t spend the extra few minutes contemplating the issue.
Software piracy is NOT like just walking into a shop and stealing. By infringing copyright you do not stop anyone else using that product. So no, not paying for a burger is not at all like copying the latest Photoshop.
The problem with DRM is that everything it can directly prevent is actually fair use. If you buy a DVD, game, CD, or software package, you are legally entitled to make backup copies for your own use. You probably are not entitled to give these copies to others. Because it is in practice nearly impossible to restrict the “giving to others” part, the recording industry and its buddies want to prevent all creation of personal copies, even though we have the legitimate legal basis to do so.
The bigger question is: should there be any laws against unrestricted copying and distribution of digital content? Such activities should only be illegal if they, on the balance, harm the public interest. It is certainly not in the business interest of the recording industry to allow unrestricted copying, but that should not be the standard by which we set public policy. There is no law of nature that says we have to have a “recording industry”. Where was the recording industry 100 years ago? It didn’t exist, because the needed technology didn’t exist. Subsequent technological advances made mass reproduction of recordings possible, but only in an industrial setting, so the “recording industry” sprang up. Note that “recording Industry” is a misnomer, it should really be “recording, reproduction, marketing, and distribution industry”.
Well, now technology has advanced some more, and at least the reproduction and distribution aspects are easily within reach of the average person. The calmly rational response should be to allow these activities and admit that we no longer need an “industry” to carry them out, at least not on the same scope, just as we no longer need a buggy whip industry. Au contraire – these activities are “theft” and “piracy”, worthy of lawsuits for millions of dollars, or so the RIAA would claim, and to even investigate how to circumvent copy prevention is a crime, according to the DMCA.
I’m not advocating illegal copying. I am advocating getting our legal system to recognize the tremendous advantage digital media represent with respect to perfect and virtually cost-free reproduction, and the benefits to the public at large.
Ianus, the two-faced roman god…i thought i’ve heard of a project named “janus” ones before in a movie, google told me which it was: Judge Dredd. “Project Janus” was the creation of cloned cops to win the fight against crime, which was nearly lost…just a funny side note. =)
And how would the artists get their money when everyone is allowed to copy and distribute ?
It could be great if there would be a monitored system in cooperation with the isp’s, system like gnutella but professional. And you can download songs of it, which are all put in a large database. Every month people get a bill for there downloaded songs with there isp monthly bill, or somtin like that.
Albums and singles would be much cheaper for the people, or at least they should.
just a quick tought
“And how would the artists get their money when everyone is allowed to copy and distribute ? ”
How much do you think an usual artist earn for a 20€ CD ? This drm thing, for music at last, is only a way for big companies to enforce their quasi monopole, and to avoid too much hassle with artists. Right now, their model is to use a few artists only, very big, because it is much cheaper to produce one big artist who sells 5 millions albums than 100 who sell 50 000.
See what is happening with itunes: the musicians earn nothing with it.
The trap is to think that piracy is a danger for artists. This is what RIIA want you to think.
It’s not dangerous for artisits?
You are so left, you probably don’t even have a right hand-
The illegal distribution of music is making it harder for new and maybe progressive artists to stand up. Why do you think music is so alike these days? Because the music industry is not willing to take risks. They play it safe. Because people copy so much, lesser selling (but not nescesarally lesser in quality) artists aren’t offered contracts, because they aren’t profitable anymore.
What kind of bands does the music industry want? Well, bands and artists from whom they know they’ll sell. No more risktaking.
Since music is my one true love, I grant ANY corporation the full right to include ANY kind of copy protection on their albums. I don’t care. I don’t download albums anyway; I go to the MUSIC STORE. Yes, that’s one of those things with those plastic CD’s all over the place (and, if it’s a good one, a few vinyls as well).
Think about it.
Even if DRM makes ONE person go to the music store instead of downloading an album, it was worth it.
I think they should use the copy protection scheme Sierra used in the 80’s…
“Now before you play this movie, turn to page 473 of the manual and tell me what the tenth word of the third paragraph is.”
Of course, that would require MS to ship a manual with their software…hmmm
I don’t care. I don’t download albums anyway; I go to the MUSIC STORE. Yes, that’s one of those things with those plastic CD’s all over the place (and, if it’s a good one, a few vinyls as well).
I don’t think Windows DRM is intended for downloads only. Microsoft just doesn’t think that small. They want to see all commercial DVDs and CDs encoded in WMF as well. This is a product they are trying to sell to the industry, and DRM is the killer feature.
Don’t think the studios aren’t interested either. I know I won’t be buying anything so crippled, but most of the sheep out there won’t really care when Congress mandates all future playback devices are required to have the Microsoft DRM chip inside.
Trustworthy living.
It’s not that i care to make illegal copies either, but I’m sick of the upgrade merry-go-round for products already purchased, and disturbed that we would hand complete control to one company.
Yes David, I know that the record labels get almost all of the money out of it. And the most pirated albums are from musicians who get too much money already anyway. But if you want another system of distribution, how would you do it. At least I tought to understand you want.
I think the current system is not good for creator nor listener….
Here in Belgium I hear a lot about that there has to be copy protection, copying is bad , etc. Because the Belgian musicians don’t earn a lot of money, they have a hard time to survive, etc. People who believe that these so called artists don’t earn a lot because of illegal copying are completely wrong. You can’t even find there songs on gnutella and the like. But that is what is being said here by politicians, etc. A lot of these artists make only crap songs, they do that fulltime… They think that copy protection is there key to succes, really, the current popular so called artists have never been so far from real art… Instead of making good music and think about how to do it they seem to wonder more about how to earn more money, art for money’s sake.
Don’t get me wrong , artists should earn money for what they do if people like it. But unsuccesful artists, mostly ex-succesful artists with media attention, tend to blame copying. Which is a lie.
@ Thom:
> The illegal distribution of music is making it harder
> for new and maybe progressive artists to stand up.
100% bull.
“New and maybe progressive artists”?
Hell, good friends of mine just made their first CD. 300 copies made, no copy protection, and if they sell 150 of ’em at a price of 15 €, they have a break-even.
Barbara Clear rented the Olympiahalle, Munich, for a concert. No label, no agency, just her. Sold tickets three years in advance wherever she played. Had to sell 6000 tickets to break-even – sold 8000.
Hundreds of artists place their music on their webpages, alongside a PayPal button, and most of them are quite happy with the revenue.
And the radio stations play the same two-dozen “hits” all day long, while labels, agencies, and a selected few top-acts make millions.
A hundred years ago, there were no “labels”, and no “agencies”, but there were musicians. DRM is an attempt to fight the evolution, because powerful people are making powerful income from the way things are.
That has always been done, but today those powerful people might be powerful enough to actually succeed in bringing evolution to a grinding halt.
@ Anonymous:
> TCPA etc. is really exciting stuff, an enabler,
> an “empowerer.”
Yes, for those who already are powerful – empowering them to rule the field.
@ Rick:
> One of the barriers to people trying alternatives (I
> don’t mean “liking”, just *trying*) to monopolist
> software is piracy.
Another one is compatibility. Tomorrow’s Windows will not allow your *legally bought* music to be played on *any other device* – including the Linux on the very same hardware. And even if Linux should join the fray – with Linus T. isn’t opposed to the idea, and big companies making big bucks with Linux to afford the licensing – that still means all others have to keep out.
Is that your idea of competition?
@ Anonymous:
> You also seem to be forgetting the fact that the
> technology can and will be used by ordinary people
> to protect their own digital assets,
I don’t want to “protect” my digital assets. Even the stuff I don’t release as PD anyway isn’t worth infringing on people’s privacy and freedom.
See http://freenet.sourceforge.net.
@ gunnix:
> And how would the artists get their money when
> everyone is allowed to copy and distribute ?
Again, see http://freenet.sourceforge.net. Being an artist has nothing to do with getting money. Either you are an artist because you like to express yourself through an art, or you are just a greedy wannabe-superstar. I don’t charge people when they huddle around the campfire to hear me singing, either. I like singing, and I like it when people listen to me.
How many “stars” of today can still claim that?
Applying DRM back to computers:
I have two games as original CD-ROM, both of which are broken (one dropped, one from overuse). Neither of both I could get replacements for because the companies who made them ran out of stock and were unwilling to compensate, asking me to “buy the sequel, it’s much better anyway”.
DRM would forbid me to download a copy, or burn one at my friend’s place. Is that legal? Is that “fair”?
If you outlaw something, the outlaws will still have it. Those being hurt are sincerely yours, Joe Average.
Same as with strong encryption. What does a ban on encryption achieve? Criminals will use one of the many ways to camouflage encrypted messages, as with steganography – so Secret Service will be clueless as to the next act of terrorism. But they will certainly find out that you spoke up against your government in an e-mail to your buddy recently…
@ All:
Being paranoid doesn’t mean they’re *not* out to get ya.
Correcting the FreeNet link I posted… it’s the Philosophy subpage, http://freenet.sourceforge.net/index.php?page=philosophy.
The illegal distribution of music is making it harder for new and maybe progressive artists to stand up.
Gee I’ve allways figured the fact that a CD for 20€ where the music company gets 19€ for it and the artist 1€ is the real problem. Why not just let the artist record some music, sell it online for like 5€, doubling profits and still offering the online store some money?
Oh, no I forgot… the purpose of these record companies is what? What actual function do they fill these days now that distribution isn’t a problem anymore? It’s a dying industry when the distribution is cut in favour of artists earning more while getting closer to consumers…
Good for us..
If you don’t like DRM, simply don’t buy anything using it. It’s really that simple.
“And how would the artists get their money when everyone is allowed to copy and distribute?”
The quick answer is “they won’t”, but it isn’t much different from the current system where hardly any of the money from CD sales goes to the artist anyway. Furthermore, broadcast radio stations play music all the time, and neither they nor their listeners pay a cent to the artists to do so.
My point is that the inherent nature of digitalization of media lends itself to copying and redistribution, and like other technical advances, this is leading to upheavals. The recording industry wants to remain in a world where only they can make perfect copies and thus charge $20 apiece for them, but that world no longer exists short of laws designed to shoehorn current technology back into the limitations of the pre-digital world. The recording industry rode a technological wave for decades where it was relatively cheap to reproduce sound recordings on an industrial scale, but not on a private scale, and made many billions as a result. Now their technological model has become obselete, and they are seeking legal measures to keep the clock from moving forward.
It is codenamed Janus, after the double faced Roman God, because the whole point of this DRM initiative has two sides to it. On one hand it keeps the entertainment industry and all the jobs alive, but on the other hand it screws their users/buyer by limiting their choices and opening them up to all kind of rip-offs. Remember, these are all big corporations we’re talking about…
Oh, well, you can always do it the old-school style: just hook up that analog line-out jack. If the sound quality is so good as those MS guys brag about, then the copies should be great!
It always suprises me when I hear people trying to justify piracy thinking this is a normal way of life. Any way you try to sugar coat it most of society finds piracy an illegal act that hurts everyone. The big picture is that piracy impacts more than just the studios. It affects the people working behind the camera, digital artists, musicians, etc. Think of the consequences of your actions not only for yourself but others you are intentionally hurting.
I have yet to see one logical reason for making backups at home for DVD movies or CD music lables. Anyone supposedly “backing up” copyright material is really only intending to distribute it over the Net or share with buddies which is illegal since you are violating the copyright. People continue to wine because they may just have to start actually paying for the material they have been illegally getting for free.
As for companies like Microsoft and Apple there is nothing stopping other companies from licensing their codecs and protection. Sure that would mean LINUX users would actually have to pay something for such programs as MPlayer or Kaffeine to cover the cost for those developers. Still at least I would know I can play my DVD/CD with out any hassle and know that I’m helping to stop piracy.
Gee I’ve allways figured the fact that a CD for 20€ where the music company gets 19€ for it and the artist 1€ is the real problem. Why not just let the artist record some music, sell it online for like 5€, doubling profits and still offering the online store some money?
Uhm, dude, how many people are actually going to BUY the song, y’think? How long will it take before it’s on FastTrack/BitTorrent/whatever?
Selling music online is like only making it easier for people to distribute illegal content. It eliminates the step of actually putting the CD into the tray and pressing the “rip” button…
@ HAL:
> If you don’t like DRM, simply don’t buy anything
> using it. It’s really that simple.
That’s so shortsighted, it makes me speechless.
It’s like telling me I should stop breathing if I fear the greenhouse effect.
No, it is *not* that simple. If those DRM schemes get implemented, you will no longer have a choice. There will be no alternative to buying, using, accepting DRM. The mail from your friend / boss cannot be displayed on your computer because you aren’t DRM’ed. The website you want to visit cannot be displayed because you aren’t DRM’ed. You can’t listen to any music because you aren’t DRM’ed. You aren’t DRM’ed? Hey, dude, you are illegal. What do you have to hide?
If you don’t like the DRM, don’t buy stuff that uses it. If that simple, nobody is making you get DRMed content that you can’t use with your <2% marketshare OSs.
Something new to crack! w00t!
”
The illegal distribution of music is making it harder for new and maybe progressive artists to stand up. Why do you think music is so alike these days? Because the music industry is not willing to take risks. They play it safe. Because people copy so much, lesser selling (but not nescesarally lesser in quality) artists aren’t offered contracts, because they aren’t profitable anymore.
”
First, the sells of CD may decrease because of DVD, don’t you think ? For example, I am a student. I cannot spend 300€ par month to buy media. There is dvd (which by the way are expensive: why, why on earth are DVD much more expensive than VHS, which cost more to produce ?), if I buy dvd, i buy less DVD.
I agree that piracy kills a few markets: the single, for example. I know quite a few musiciens, pro and semi pro, in hip hop, trip hop, jazz, classical music. Piracy is not the problem, believe me. The uniformisation of music is far more ancient that P2P. Last year, in france,for almost one month, 30% of the selling was realised with one crappy band from TV show. Maybe people are tired of hearing shit everywhere ont the radio ? ( I speak for france, here, which is really an horrible country for people like me who love music).
BTW, I don’t even have one copied CD in my 300 CD collection, all are original. So the ‘you don’t want to pay’ BS makes me smile a bit. If tomorrow, I can’t copy my CD on my computer because of DRM, I won’t buy them, for sure…
>Even if DRM makes ONE person go to the music store instead of >downloading an album, it was worth it.
You’re only seeing one of the effects. Ok, it may make more people buy the thing and not copying it and that’s a good thing…
BUT it will restrict what people can do with their legally purchased media.
“You have to pay more $$$ to play this song on another computer”
“Pay more if you want to play it in your portable player”
… ad nauseam
It just takes away our rights
” if I buy dvd, i buy less DVD. ”
I meant I buy less CD, of course. Damn, my english is awful, tonight…
The illegal distribution of music is making it harder for new and maybe progressive artists to stand up. Why do you think music is so alike these days? Because the music industry is not willing to take risks. They play it safe. Because people copy so much, lesser selling (but not nescesarally lesser in quality) artists aren’t offered contracts, because they aren’t profitable anymore.
What kind of bands does the music industry want? Well, bands and artists from whom they know they’ll sell. No more risktaking.
Man, you could enrich the soil of a desert with the manure you’re writing…
The decline of the record industry began in the middle of the 90s, before Napster & co. There are also other reasons why people buy less music these days: there are far more entertainment sources. Video games, DVDs…
Finally, it’s true that the sells of new albums ain’t good. Then again, the sells for the back catalogue (albums that are more than 5 years old) of RIAA-affiliated labels rose. If the industry don’t get the clue, well… That’s not my fricking problem.
Since music is my one true love, I grant ANY corporation the full right to include ANY kind of copy protection on their albums. I don’t care.
Well, maybe you like to be screwed like a whore, but that’s not the case for most people.
I don’t download albums anyway; I go to the MUSIC STORE. Yes, that’s one of those things with those plastic CD’s all over the place (and, if it’s a good one, a few vinyls as well).
If you’re assuming that downloaders don’t do that, you are wrong. I bought over 100 CDs because I downloaded them first. I downloaded them, liked them and bought them. And, coincidence, 95% of them happens to be from the back catalogue…
DRM, like guns, isn’t bad. It’s how you use it. And I fear that the media industry won’t use it the right way.
…where artists are only making real money from gigs, not from CD sales. People here buy either $2 CDs made by pirates, if the legal ones are too expensive ($20 per CD is not something an average Russian can afford), or $4-5 legal CDs that are cheap enough but don’t make a big revenue.
Let’s not fool ourselves: many DRM technologies have nothing to do with enforcing or protecting a copyright.
DVD region codes: what right is protected by region coding? For that matter, what right is protected by disabling fast-forward on DVDs during movie previews and commercials? Is it copyright infringement to play an Australian DVD in the USA? No. Are your rights being violated when I listen to your CD on an unlicensed portable device? No.
DRM is the management of user restrictions, many of which have nothing to do with enforcing legal protections. The DRM dream is that companies will make more money if they can still exert fine-grained control over CDs/DVDs/Books even after ownership is passed to the consumer. Copy-protection is just an added bonus.
So no, media companies don’t have “every right to protect their work.” They only have copyrights, and do not have any real legal right to control use beyond those copyrights.
Caj
Anyone remeber back in the 80’s when people would record songs off the radio and put them on cassette. Damn those were the good days.
The real question is: what is most beneficial for society (Pareto-optimal)? The output of the media industry and their artists (and the revenue that streams to them) OR that as many people as possible can enjoy the content that is actually created (making people more happy — increase their utility)?
If sharing content online was legal would there exist films and music? I think so. Free software does exist. Question is of course how to finance expensive and resource hungry projects.
”
@ gunnix:
> And how would the artists get their money when
> everyone is allowed to copy and distribute ?
Again, see http://freenet.sourceforge.net. Being an artist has nothing to do with getting money. Either you are an artist because you like to express yourself through an art, or you are just a greedy wannabe-superstar. I don’t charge people when they huddle around the campfire to hear me singing, either. I like singing, and I like it when people listen to me.
How many “stars” of today can still claim that?
”
I do think as well that artists shouldn’t be in it for money. Like I said, it’s art for money’s sake now. I’m completely against all these “superstars” and the whole media around them. MTV is rediculous, etc.
But the thing is that recording and distributing cd’s costs money. Nowhere near 20€, I know that. But with internet the artists should still have a server, recording instruments, etc. I and many other people are willing to pay for it. But at reasonable pricing, like the $4-5 legal CD’s Artem mentioned being sold in Russia. I don’t think the artists receive any money from such low priced cd’s because of the record label involved tho =/ .Big corporations like record industries should be left out and let art become art for the people again.
I’m more concerned by the illegit use of DRM. The purpose of DRM is to make copying difficult or impossible.
But what about files that need to be copied? Everything is on a computer nowadays. What about the whistle-blowers (employees that report illegal things their company is doing). They will have a hard time at getting those files that are necessary to get the government’s attention.
DRM is perfect for those that may want to communicate with secrecy: Enron executives, unscrupulous bureucrats, maybe even terrorists. Only set the permissions: may only be read once (then erase), may not be printed etc. No trace of plans, orders, and the like…
If this kind of technology gets widespread and accepted/integrated then the implications are far more serious than just some minor inconvenience for CD-buyers. It will make our society more secretive.
Is it worth the risk to introduce DRM to “help” the billionairs in the music industry to become multi-billionairs?
I am extremely sceptical…
Also I think that internet is no full solution, what about people who don’t have internet. Or you want to buy a cd quickly for a present?
Maybe a record shop with a computer… costumers can pick the songs from inet and burn em on cd in 2-3 minutes
. Get the cover if they want and let it be printed in the shop with a superb printer on nice paper…
It might be a good solution on second tought.
While I am all for people protecting their arsetts, I am also mindful of fair use. In the last several years we’ve seen the Copyright Extension Act, the DMCA and a number of other lesser laws that begin to take away from the public domain. Some even threaten to allow corporations to own facts (because of supposed threats to the use of their databases). When this is combined with the billyclub known as lawsuits, the consumer has very few rights and alternatives indeed.
We are clearly in a situation where the corporations are raiding the public domain and manipulating our law-makers to support their actions. Imagine trying to make a remake of Snow White and the Seven Dwarves. Do you think Disney came up with the story? They didn’t, but they can keep you from touching the material without paying royalties.
While some of you are clearly happy with DRM, this does not mean that everyone will see things your way, even when they are not a pirate. I personally could not care less about movie or music downloads. They simply don’t interest me. But as an educator, I am concerned that fair use is starting to disappear and that soon it will be gone.
Imagine a world in which you can only read a book once without paying for it again. Although some of you may think it is far fetched, and others of you may even think it to be a good thing, in reality, limiting access to information unless you can pay will be devastating to the poor, the third world and others. We live in a world in which it is more of a crime to copy a DVD than it is to kill the neighbor’s dog. Nuff said.
If you are interested in reading Laurence Lessig’s view on this, check out:
http://mindjack.com/feature/lessig.html
You may also want to see what happened in England and elsewhere when the Commons (land or property accessible by all) was enclosed by the law between the 12th and 19th centuries. Only the rich benefitted.
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Enclosure
and
http://www.calresco.org/texts/mutaid7.htm
You people are really sick– The industry has every right to protect their work! Whether it be music, software or whatever. They create it, they work for it, so they have the right to defend their rights as well. How would you feel if you were, for instance, a butcher and everyone just entered your little shop, took your burgers, and just walked out, without a single payment? You’d call the cops, place camera’s, etc etc.
That would be a valid comparison, if, with a few mouse clicks (copy… paste) it was possible to make new burgers. And no one actually stole my burgers, they just looked at them, and suddenly had identical ones.
Or, if when I create a burger, no one else was allowed to make a burger for the next 75 years, or so, without my permission.
The economics of producing digital media are very different from products that are primary dependent on physical raw materials. In order to make new burger, we have to have an entire industry to raise cattle for meat. There is no simple way to make one million copies of a cow. If there was, burgers would be far less valuable.
Then we take a look at entertainment media, where a person or small group of people create something, and due to copyright laws have a monopoly on that creation for their lifetime.
I am not saying I can make an arbitrary decision on what is “right” or “wrong” ethically in this situation, but no one else can either. It is not the same world as consumables, and we can’t keep pretending it is.
If I download a copy of Britney Spears “Toxic” song digitally, without paying anything, she loses nothing physically. She doesn’t lose any money, no one in the entire industry loses any money. No CDs were lost or stolen. Maybe she loses a potential sale, maybe not, but it obviously isn’t the same as stealing a burger.
Comparing physical consumable with digital media just doesn’t work on several levels.
personally i just can’t see any good in coming from punishing people for being music fans and making the effort to hear new music.
i’m almost tempted to go onto kazaa and download some of my own music, just to see if the riaa would sue me for having mp3’s of my own songs on my hard-drive.
-moby
“For the artists, my ass…I didn’t ask them to protect me, and I don’t want their protection.” – David Dreiman, Disturbed lead singer
http://launch.yahoo.com/read/news.asp?contentID=214602
Stop buying the content, but stop stealing it also.
If you do the former but not the latter, you’ll just give them an excuse to keep pushing this DRM crap down your throat.
Remember, digital entertainment is not food or air – you don’t HAVE to have it.
“Now before you play this movie, turn to page 473 of the manual and tell me what the tenth word of the third paragraph is.”
Yeah i remember that one. So we had a printed out walkthrough, cheat codes, tips ‘n tricks and… *gasp* the “codes”. Because that scheme wasn’t endless.
It is still break once run everywhere. Plus what gives when the supplier of the game scans in the manual as PDF? These days i already see magazines scanned in as PDF. Why not manuals then?
—-
“But what about files that need to be copied? Everything is on a computer nowadays. What about the whistle-blowers (employees that report illegal things their company is doing). They will have a hard time at getting those files that are necessary to get the government’s attention.”
You bring up a good point.
If i have a LCD monitor and a good digital camera i can make use of that 1 time show i am allowed to. If a have a good video camcorder i can tape a movie from my monitor. If i have good boxes […] sound. Then came the modchips. I am looking forward to uncrack people’s new computers for the mere price of only 50 EUR; compared to 25 EUR to unlock a sat. receiver + putting Linux + menu on it (the MIPS/PPC
. It’ll just be harder, there is demand for cheaper media, so you bett the cheaper media will be there.
There’s still no technology between our eyes, ears, hands, mouths, nose and the computer peripherals itself. As for gov: they can crack the DRM (ie. MS can) and they still got TEMPEST too.
Otherwise, there will be a huge split. Illegal media will then be much less common, and the legal media becomes more popular. Thus also the more “progressive” (new talent) artists (Thom has a point here imo). It is a win for everyone who distributes their media in a legal way, including: The scene’s mod tracker/sequencers (oh, the hypocricy), FLOSS (MS better be careful), and the nice, relative small number of underground movies of which i happen to happily own a few of.
So what does that mean. No more Adobe Photoshop on that kid’s computer. No way. He can’t afford that. Instead, he choses The GIMP, which is freely available to him. He learns the program, as do others. Then when he masters it, he later has to apply his experience in the field (work/school). What will he use there, given what he knows? Perhaps they can better use The GIMP because he knows how to use it and it is more Free & free. With masses following such scheme (it’ll happen…) there goes your market. Become as niche as it can get. Same for CAD, Rendering, etc.
Basically i agree with Thom in some extend. Piracy does hold back the less popular programs. People want and learn the “Real” thing. However, not only piracy is to blame, and i think this is less true in the music sector.
I hate to break the news to you all, but corporations/content owners have rights too, and one of their rights is to protect their content.
You all act like the world revolves around you, and you should be able to do whatever you want with what you have purchased… but the fact of the matter is, people pirate the music, and as long as people try to get away with breaking the law as much as they can, the DRM will be there.
Not to say that I support some of the more restrictive terms of DRM. DRM should limit you no more than would just having the CD, meaning, you should be able to play it anywhere you like, as many times as you like, so on and so forth.
Microsoft is not doing anyone a favor — including themselves — pushing the world to DRM.
For the information age to prosper, the friction must be kept low. All DRM does is increase the friction, the cost of transactions. In a network economy, this friction is devastating.
The innovation that is missing is new business models for the information age, not new sets of locks and keys that will cripple the economy.
Microsoft remains their stupid selves. They keep stealing ideas and technology from others but don’t know what to do other than keep making weapons. Typical Gates/Ballmore.
Reasons DVD’s are more expensive:
1) They have more content/features
2) They are higher quality
3) People overall are willing to pay the extra cost (The Laws of Supply/Demand)
There are, more reasons, but you should get the drift by now.
Do I burn pirated materials? – No. I use a stereo to listen to my music. What a concept.
Do I use the “other platform”? – Aside from work – only when helping those poor saps that keep crashing it. Man they scream when they can’t fix it on their own. “Cha-Ching”.
Remember, the so-called decision to use the “other platform” is generally mandated by a closed IT shop and not an open choice. Rather when you “choose” to use the “other platform” it a “purchase” “for permission to use”, hence a costly license, of closed-source code.
Intellectual Choice. Yeah. Okay.
<action> Troy goes back to playing with his
locally-grown peanuts
By David Bruce
“The quick answer is “they won’t”, but it isn’t much different from the current system where hardly any of the money from CD sales goes to the artist anyway. Furthermore, broadcast radio stations play music all the time, and neither they nor their listeners pay a cent to the artists to do so. “
Radio stations can’t go into a music shop, buy a cd and then play what ever they want. They have to pay a licensing fee and can only play certain songs (at least on new albums that is.) You should hear how many times 1 song from Aerosmith’s Honkin on Bobo and 1 from Eric Clapton’s Me and Mr Johnson are getting played while nothing else gets played from those albums.
Prices are a little out of wack for cds lately, the 2 cds mentioned above are being sold for $13.99-$17.99 (Canadian) while ZZ-Top’s Eliminator (from around 1983) is still selling for a price close to what vinyl was selling for back then ($26-$30 Canadian.) Go figure.
Others have said that DRM is a method for RIAA companies to lock consumers in as revenue streams and screw the artists. Why can’t that idea be reversed, though? Artists could skip the RIAA and go straight to a DRM supplier like Microsoft and sell their songs directly. I could see a music service springing up where an artist gives their music to the service, which DRMs it and keeps a fracton of the revnues. Songs will go for less and there will be competition between distribution channels (traditional recording companies versus internet) that will lower the profit of record companies while increasing the revenue for artists due to increased sales.
If the Recording industry is economically obsolete it will die out on its own eventually regardless of the measures that it tries to take.
” hate to break the news to you all, but corporations/content owners have rights too, and one of their rights is to protect their content.
You all act like the world revolves around you, and you should be able to do whatever you want with what you have purchased… but the fact of the matter is, people pirate the music, and as long as people try to get away with breaking the law as much as they can, the DRM will be there.
Not to say that I support some of the more restrictive terms of DRM. DRM should limit you no more than would just having the CD, meaning, you should be able to play it anywhere you like, as many times as you like, so on and so forth.
”
___________________
People try to get away breaking the law as much as they can???
These copy protections are themselves illegal!!!
Copy protected cd’s can’t play on some cd-players.
Copy protection stops us from our right to make 1 backup copy.
They don’t care about the law, they think they make it.
Take your store bought CD.
Scratch it by accident.
Try getting a new copy of it (replacement copy) from the manufacturer.
Can you say “go pay full price again”.
You will soon find out you are just a dupe, a dumb content purchaser who paid full price for content that has no service, no usage rights, etc.
You will be especially downtrodden when you scratch your favorite copy-protected CD.
All in all, the content business is an illegal sham. There i no moral issue involved with copyright infringement as the original purchase is a “bad faith” contract in the first place.
Sure it can help to enable DRM (and you’d better believe that I’d implement it on stuff I’d rather not share with the world, and sure corporations can and will use it for such as well, and likely in ways that some of you don’t agree with. It’s coming, it’s unstopable. People want it; ordinary people with more than half a clue.
There are many useful, and acceptable used for this technology, and safer computing, communication and storage are among them. If you’d stop spouting off the crap you’ve absorbed from the likes of Richard Stallman and other paraniod delusionals and actually learned about the whole “trusted computing” concept, you’d see that the benefits by far outwiegh the downsides to it’s adoption.
I don’t like the whole “intellectual property” idea any more than any of the whiners on this site, but people should be free do protect what they see as theirs regardless. Don’t forget that the TGC technologies, and DRM programs implemented on top of it won’t lock you out of non-DRM’d files (even pirated ones).
Old argument, as always falling on deaf ears, knives can be used to butter your bread or to cut down the stupid, ill-adapted, and ill-prepared. Useful little things they are, and I’ll not abandon those either, just because some people use them to carve up their neighbors.
The whole TCPA deal is a shell game to implement a total lockdown on information access, the underpinnings of a global police state.
There is a reason it is only governments and giant multinationals that are in favor of TCPA.
In reality, TCPA enables untraceable/unstoppable criminal activities. The benefits are for governments and giant corporations. The costs will be paid by the individual, the common man.
If you can’t make trustable people, how do you make trustable computers?
Piracy is inevitable. For every security measure, there’s a counter security measure, etc. Life goes on…
I can’t wait until Longhorn comes out so the crackers and script kiddies will have a new project and hopefully leave other OSes alone for a change.
The whole TCPA deal is a shell game to implement a total lockdown on information access, the underpinnings of a global police state.
RMS did a fine job on you dearie.
There is a reason it is only governments and giant multinationals that are in favor of TCPA.
WOW! I’m a multinational now!!! Oh wait…
In reality, TCPA enables untraceable/unstoppable criminal activities.
I think that you need to put a little more thought into that one kiddo.
The benefits are for governments and giant corporations.
Wow, I must be one of them, because I can think of a couple of dozen ways that I could benefit from it right now, off the top of my head.
The costs will be paid by the individual, the common man.
All for the price of the new computers that will inevitably be bought by each new generation. I’m sure you forgot about that though.
If you can’t make trustable people, how do you make trustable computers?
Trustable people? I’m still waiting to find other intelligent people…
And how do you make trustable people? If people cannot be trusted, how can computers be trusted?
Why push the absurdity of TCPA on the world? Do we need jails and prisons for information as well as people?
The whole thing about TCPA is that an individual will not be able to build a TCPA machine. Thus the information age will be controlled by the big multinationals. Your access to your own machine will be watched and controlled by outside companies (hence the “trust”).
Anyone who supports the TCPA is by definition anti-freedom.
“Wow, I must be one of them, because I can think of a couple of dozen ways that I could benefit from it right now, off the top of my head.”
By all means, give us some examples.
And how do you make trustable people? If people cannot be trusted, how can computers be trusted?
Example; I trust you to be not too bright, so I’ll take precautions ising anything known to be produced by you.
Why push the absurdity of TCPA on the world?
TCPA is far less absurd than your uneducated arguments against it.
Do we need jails and prisons for information as well as people?
Yes, we really, truely do.
Thus the information age will be controlled by the big multinationals.
You don’t leave your parent’s basement much do you?
Your access to your own machine will be watched and controlled by outside companies (hence the “trust”).
Bullshit. You should be far more worried that people are doing that to you now with your current software, regardless of what it is.
Anyone who supports the TCPA is by definition anti-freedom.
Oh I’m far from it child, but I value my freedom to secure my data, work and personal information far more than I care for your freedom to smoke up and dream up these wild, unfounded theories.
The Trusted Computing Group:
https://www.trustedcomputinggroup.org/home
The now defunct TCPA folks:
http://www.trustedcomputing.org/home
IBM Watson Research – TCPA Resources:
http://www.research.ibm.com/gsal/tcpa/
Why TCPA?:
http://www.research.ibm.com/gsal/tcpa/why_tcpa.pdf
TCPA Misinformation Rebuttal:
http://www.research.ibm.com/gsal/tcpa/tcpa_rebuttal.pdf
TCPA Device Driver for Linux:
http://www.research.ibm.com/gsal/tcpa/tpm-1.1b.tar.gz
Read, learn, experiment and most of all, STFU until you can do more than waste our time child.
Well, I agree with you… to an extend.
There are many useful, and acceptable used for this technology, and safer computing, communication and storage are among them. If you’d stop spouting off the crap you’ve absorbed from the likes of Richard Stallman and other paraniod delusionals and actually learned about the whole “trusted computing” concept, you’d see that the benefits by far outwiegh the downsides to it’s adoption.
That’s where we disagree. I’ve read some papers on the concept… From people are against this concept and from those who are developing it. Theorically, you’re right. But pratically… DRM gives a lot of power/control to the owner. As you may know, in the hands of men, all power corrupts. Absolute power… is even more fun, yes, but also corrupts absolutely. Call me a cynic if you want, but I don’t have faith in those who will use it. I love security, but I’m not a control freak. I know that Microsoft probably won’t desactivate my copy of MS Windows at distance… but the fact they could (and also censor pretty much everything I could do, thanks to an unique ID) doesn’t make most of us comfortable. And that’s just one example out of many they could do with TCPA combined with DRM.
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq-0.2.html
And not take IBM’s or Microsoft’s word for it….
Oh, by the way… I suggest you to stop calling people with names as it makes you as childish and idiot as those you are denouncing. You have to learn that the world isn’t revolving around you and that not everybody share the same opinion.
I’ve worked with the NSA. I know what TCPA is. That is why I don’t have illusions about it.
You may wish to ponder the words of Robert Oppenheimer:
“The open society, the unrestricted access to knowledge, the unplanned and uninhibited association of men for its furtherance – these are what may make a vast, complex, ever growing, ever changing, ever more specialized and expert technological world, nevertheless a world of human community.”
If you think digital locks, digital access controls, and digital prisons promote human evolution and community your understanding of the world is fundamentally broken.
“but the fact they could (and also censor pretty much everything I could do, thanks to an unique ID) doesn’t make most of us comfortable. And that’s just one example out of many they could do with TCPA combined with DRM.”
Yep. And again, if there’s going to be DRM, shouldn’t it be the government administering it rather than a corporation, Hollywood or the Music Industry?
DRM gives a lot of power/control to the owner.
So do common, run of the mill trojans of today.
Seriously, in a world where more and more computers are interconnected while running really complex and difficult to debug software, I’d much prefer that they all have capabilites such as the “trusted boot” and related functions, as well as what essentially boils down to hardware encrypted memory protecting my confidential personal data.
Shit, I’ve seen some hospital equipment online, and that thought coupled with todays technology scares me more than not being able to pirate the next crap Disney movies.
“Yep. And again, if there’s going to be DRM, shouldn’t it be the government administering it rather than a corporation, Hollywood or the Music Industry?
Is there a difference?
In America at least, the government is controlled by the large corporations, Hollywood, and music industry.
Oh, by the way… I suggest you to stop calling people with names as it makes you as childish and idiot as those you are denouncing.
Some would say so, others don’t care. I don’t care. I’ve seen and been exposed to worse IRL. Real maturity is filtering out the frustrations of others, not holding back your own.
You have to learn that the world isn’t revolving around you and that not everybody share the same opinion.
Heh. I learned that decades ago friend, and just because some don’t agree with me doesn’t mean that I’m not right
TCPA has to do with hospital equipment now? I don’t see any large hospital companies on the TCPA list. Funny that.
Why don’t you say “it’s for the children!” ??
We need TCPA to protect the children from online child molesters, right?
As for the memory spaces on your personal machine that have mission critical information… if it really matters, just disconnect that machine from the Internet. Or use VMWare. And/or any of the many excellent encryption tools. Or all of the above.
There is no security issue that gets solved with TCPA that is not already solved today.
I’ve worked with the NSA. I know what TCPA is.
Certainly not in any part of it that’s actually responsible for “security” from the sounds of your ravings.
If you think digital locks, digital access controls, and digital prisons promote human evolution and community your understanding of the world is fundamentally broken.
I’m a biotechnologist, I’m well aware of how evolution works, and trust me, niether situation prevents it.
TCPA has to do with hospital equipment now? I don’t see any large hospital companies on the TCPA list. Funny that.
Hello! Is there anybody in there?!
Why don’t you say “it’s for the children!” ??
I thought that real information security was rather all inclusive.
We need TCPA to protect the children from online child molesters, right?
No, that’s what neighborhood watches and “prisons for people” are for.
As for the memory spaces on your personal machine that have mission critical information… if it really matters, just disconnect that machine from the Internet.
Damn, you really are oblivious to how the world is evolving aren’t you?
Or use VMWareAnd/or any of the many excellent encryption tools. Or all of the above.
Pure software solutions can be compromised in a “break once, break everywhere” type of attack. Something like TCPA is needed to mitigate this sort of thing. I’ve worked with the NSA. I know what TCPA is. What were you a janitor?
There is no security issue that gets solved with TCPA that is not already solved today.
There is no argument that will fix the gaping holes in your thought processes if you’ll never really contemplate them.
“I’m a biotechnologist, I’m well aware of how evolution works, and trust me, niether situation prevents it.”
It sounds like you’ve never run any large system models of evolution. You simply don’t get any significant evolution in a low communication / low interaction system.
If you work on bioweapons, I can see why you want TCPA for your machine. Anything that helps prevent leaks to “terrorists”… haha.
Of course most of the leaks of highly sensitive information in US history at least are inside jobs, not “terrorists”/”hackers” coming in from the outside.
Which brings me back to “trustable people”. If you cannot trust the people, no “trustable computer” is going to make a difference.
If you are going to talk about ‘future of technology’, one may note that today’s average digital camera pretty much busts TCPA.
Wait… you want secure cables into people’s eye sockets too?
At the end of the day, there really is no technological solution to what is fundamentally a human problem, not a computer problem.
I suppose they don’t teach Occam’s Razor any more?
You simply don’t get any significant evolution in a low communication / low interaction system.
Your arguments just get more and more bizzar. TCPA does not limmit communication. The Internet will still exist, and there will still be forums like this where everybody and their pothead buddies can rant all they like.
It sounds like you’ve never run any large system models of evolution.
I’ve read every paper and book I could get my hands on related to this and related topics for the last twenty years. But you worked with the NSA, so I guess that makes you far more qualified than I am on anything related to evolution.
Heh.
i didnt read all of the posts here but i wanted to add my bytes to the page. capitalism was founded on the merchant middleman, someone that never made anything them selfs but bought goods one place and shipped them somewhere else for sale. this works fine as long as you have a limited supply and a unlimited demand. in the digital age any book, song picture or similar can be can be made virtualy unlimited in supply, thereby removeing the need for a middleman to distribute the item. so drm (the r = to restrictions, not rights. in the same way the trust in trusted computing stands for the fact that you can trust your freinds computer not to send on that file that you sendt to him with a no copy/resend bit set rather then your friend can trust his computer do what he wants it to do) is a way to make a unlimited supply limited again, for mutch the same reasons that you have stuff like watermarks and security threads in all paper money these days. trusted computing im slightly interested in, drm im not interested in at all!
It’s a shame you are so bitter. I suspect that your working environment has been very hard on you. Was my guess about bioweapons correct?
All the hot military TCPA tech in the world doesn’t stop someone photographing the screen.
All the hot military TCPA tech in the world doesn’t stop human nature.
Is science blind to the simplest of observations?
(the r = to restrictions, not rights. in the same way the trust in trusted computing stands for the fact that you can trust your freinds computer not to send on that file that you sendt to him with a no copy/resend bit set rather then your friend can trust his computer do what he wants it to do)
Once again, RMS did a poor job of coming up with a good acronym. He should have called it “Digital Rights Mitigation,” because that is far closer to describing what DRM is than what he came up with.
It’s a shame you are so bitter.
It’s a shame you’re so uninformed
I suspect that your working environment has been very hard on you.
Actually, I love my job, its challenging, and at the same time, relatively stress free.
All the hot military TCPA tech in the world doesn’t stop someone photographing the screen.
Nope. Thats what the nice men and women with large weapons are for.
All the hot military TCPA tech in the world doesn’t stop human nature.
No, but evolution (either natural or artifically directed) will.
Is science blind to the simplest of observations?
Not at all. It’s clear that you are however, and furthermore, it’s clear that I’m wasting my time trying to help out a mental deficient.
So do common, run of the mill trojans of today.
True, but we can prevent them. Of course, TCPA will probably annihilate them but I don’t think it’s the best way because…
Seriously, in a world where more and more computers are interconnected while running really complex and difficult to debug software, I’d much prefer that they all have capabilites such as the “trusted boot” and related functions, as well as what essentially boils down to hardware encrypted memory protecting my confidential personal data.
Honestly, I’m really not against this. I wouldn’t bitch if the TCPA was only this. However, with all the documentation I’ve read on the subject, I came to the conclusion that DRM is a central part of the TCPA. Like a gun and (taking your example) a knife, DRM is not inheriently bad. It depend on who use it. I don’t have much faith in those who will use DRM. Like I said previously, there are big chances that it won’t get abused… but there’s Murphy’s law. They can prevent trojans but they can also allow “trusted” trojans and we won’t be able to do much against them.
Shit, I’ve seen some hospital equipment online, and that thought coupled with todays technology scares me more than not being able to pirate the next crap Disney movies.
True… but when you see stuff like this, you have to ask you something: why do they put critical equipment like this online?
Honestly, I’m really not against this. I wouldn’t bitch if the TCPA was only this. However, with all the documentation I’ve read on the subject, I came to the conclusion that DRM is a central part of the TCPA.
I can see some forms of DRM being a “killer app” for TCPA, but I seriously doubt that TCPA will be restricted purely to that use. I can see how this particular aspect bugs people however, and I sympathize (dimly).
True… but when you see stuff like this, you have to ask you something: why do they put critical equipment like this online?
I believe the reasoning is that if we can safely do so, then we are capable of doing more interesting types of things (remote controlled surgery by a speciallist when required but when said specialist cannot actually be present, as an off the top of my head example)
😛
That example was a tad futuristic admittedly, but it is something that’s being worked on, so I think its fair game.
How would you feel if you were, for instance, a butcher and everyone just entered your little shop, took your burgers, and just walked out, without a single payment? You’d call the cops, place camera’s, etc etc.
This is no different.
Yes, it is. Copying != theft, no matter how many times the corporate shills might say it does. At both a legal and conceptual level, they are fundamentally different things.
It’s not dangerous for artisits?
No, it’s a *boon* for artists. Wide-scale, free-of-charge distribution and advertising ? What artist doesn’t want their work spread as far and as wide as possible, and experienced by as many people as possible ?
The illegal distribution of music is making it harder for new and maybe progressive artists to stand up.
No, it isn’t. Indeed, the plummeting costs of production, reproduction and redistribution that are driving the alleged “piracy boom” have created a time of unprecedented opportunity and accessibility for artists.
It’s never been easier to get yourself heard, despite the best efforts of the music industry.
Why do you think music is so alike these days? Because the music industry is not willing to take risks.
Yes, because they are only interested in ever-increasing profits and aren’t prepared to risk the possibility of a loss.
They play it safe. Because people copy so much, lesser selling (but not nescesarally lesser in quality) artists aren’t offered contracts, because they aren’t profitable anymore.
No, they aren’t *as* profitable. Given the profit margin on the average CD to a record company (80-odd percent) it’d be damn near impossible to make a loss.
CD sales are booming. Despite music industry propoganda, they’ve rarely had it better.
What kind of bands does the music industry want? Well, bands and artists from whom they know they’ll sell. No more risktaking.
This is a result of corporate culture. “Piracy” has nothing to do with it.
Since music is my one true love, I grant ANY corporation the full right to include ANY kind of copy protection on their albums.
Music companies won’t be close to happy until they can automatically charge you every time you hum a tune to yourself. Even then, they’ll want to charge you more.
Is that the sort of future you want ?
This may be difficult for you to believe, but the music industry has no interest whatsoever in making a diverse range of music widely and easily available. Such a concept is an anathema to it. It’s *entire business model* is based around the premises of homogenising and restricting access to music (and other forms of entertainment), so any technology that enables quick, easy and – heaven forbid – “free” access to entertainment is an acute threat.
I don’t care. I don’t download albums anyway; I go to the MUSIC STORE. Yes, that’s one of those things with those plastic CD’s all over the place (and, if it’s a good one, a few vinyls as well).
I don’t download albums either. I occasionally download something I’ve heard on the radio, but if you’re going to try and make me feel guilty for downloading something that gets played ten times a day for 3 months straight, you’ll be fighting an uphill battle.
Think about it.
I have, extensively. Copyright, as practiced today, is an unmitigated disaster good for little more than sustaining gross corporate profiteering, plundering the existing public domain and ensuring the public domain of the future is a cultural drought devoid of variety and quality. The music industry is not helping artists, it is hindering them. The public domain is not benefiting from copyright, it is suffering.
Copyright is broken. It needs to be abolished and then rethought and reimplemented from the beginning, with *no* corporate influence whatsoever.
And how would the artists get their money when everyone is allowed to copy and distribute ?
Well, hey, they might have to actually get out there and *work* every day like everyone else does.
And you can download songs of it, which are all put in a large database. Every month people get a bill for there downloaded songs with there isp monthly bill, or somtin like that.
Albums and singles would be much cheaper for the people, or at least they should.
Why should they ? It’s not like CDs are expensive because they cost a lot to make and distribute, they’re expensive so the record company can ream the customers.
Just look at the few online music stores – they’re still charging an equivalent amount per track as you would pay buying an entire album.
When those encumbered, low quality recordings being sold online get down around the $0.20 – $0.50 mark, I might be interested. Until then, I’ll listen to the radio and spend my music-oriented money on live performances, where I actually get some value.
I don’t like the whole “intellectual property” idea any more than any of the whiners on this site, but people should be free do protect what they see as theirs regardless.
People should be Free to do what they want with what they bought. DRM and TCPA obstruct this right, they succeed where copyright protection failed for the moment…
Happy to live in a country where making a back-up of bought media is perfectly legal, and cracking your way into any effort doing so, is legal as well.
People should be Free to do what they want
People are free to do what they can get away with, nothing more.
…namely that illegal distribution of copyrighted content decrease sales. Yet a team of researchers has proven that his is not the case. In their study, the researchers followed file sharing networks and compared the results to actual CD sales. What they found is that file sharing had no adverse effect on CD sales – and in fact, for some of the highest-traded artists, there was even an increase in CD sales.
Here is a link to the study:
http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/FileSharing_March2004.pdf
The digital transfer of content is unstoppable without severely restricting users’ rights as guaranteed by the constitution. It will also likely have an adverse effect on system and network performances. Finally, as others have already pointed out, it is a losing (and costly) battle as encryption schemes are inevitably cracked and must be regularly updated.
The solution? Give the virtual (music, movies, etc.) but sell what can’t be digitally copied: performances (for movies, theater showings), posters, books. You can still sell CDs and DVDs, but make them nice objects to own, not just a plastic disk in a brittle jewel case and a two-page booklet.
Why did I buy the Extended DVD set for Lord of the Rings I and II? I could have gotten the movie off of the Internet. But in fact I wanted to own the boxed sets because they were nice artifacts – something I want to put on my little movie shelves. Same reason I bought the special “picture book” edition Kid A album by Radiohead, even though I already had a copy of the album: because it’s a cool object, and you can’t replicate a cool object on the Internet.
Finally, to whomever said that young and up-and-coming artists were against file sharing: in fact, you’ll find that those artists who are most against file sharing are the big established ones, who are afraid that they’ll no longer be able to afford their superstar lifestyles. Boo hoo. File sharing can do a lot to help unknown artists, by distributing their music in a way the major recording companies can’t.
The world is evolving, these industries will have to evolve with it.