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
The most amusing (frightening) thing about DRM, to me, is how passionate its advocates are. “The artists deserve to have their rights protected!!”
Yeah, that’s swell. The “artists” suffering so horribly from piracy are the Justin Timberlakes, the Michael Jacksons, the Bruce Spielbergs, the Sean Connerys, and the media industry CEOs, of the world.
Do they deserve to have there rights protected? Of course. Are there a hell of a lot more pressing global concerns than a handful of millionaires possibly losing a bit of money every year? Yes.
You people who argue so passionately about “protecting the artists rights” try to sound like your cause is on par with fighting world hunger. That just makes me shake my head at you in disappointment and chuckle sardonically.
Find something worth fighting passionately about, because eroding consumer rights isn’t it.
copyright was originaly created so that noone could duplicate a book and claim that it was theyre work. atleast here in my contry (norway) we have two terms floating about. one cover copyright (as in who have the right to make copys and sell them) and one covers being able to say that this is my creation (we call it opphavsrett). it seems that english lump these two together in one term, thereby muddying the water (the same happens with free: free as in beer and free as in speech. what is the diffrence? one is about cost the other is about freedom to say what you want)…
How would you feel if you were making a living off of something you created and everyone stole it?
Just because someone is rich does NOT mean you can strip their rights away. Also, there are other artists out there that are not hugely rich like the ones you named, do you still strip away their rights as well?
I’m sorry, it is obvious that you aren’t an artist of any type.
Well lets say there stupid DRM realy works how many people will use windows @ home or M$ Office ? there is not one single person that will pay all that money people will look for alternatives! like Openoffice and linux most people use windows because its installed on there pc when they bought it but use all software they have downloaded it somwhere no one is gona pay all that cash every yeah for a new version of office and there marketshare will drop eventually !
How would you feel if you were making a living off of something you created and everyone stole it?
Copying != stealing.
Until you can understand this, debate is mostly pointless. You’re arguing from a fundamentally and erroneous position.
Just because someone is rich does NOT mean you can strip their rights away.
Well, if you’re of the camp that doesn’t believe copyright (as practiced today) is a “right”, there’s nothing to strip away, is there ?
The practical impact of “stripping away their rights” would be basically nil. They’d still be famous and filthy stinking rich. Moreover, they still would have become famous and filthy stinking rich even if copyright didn’t exist, because 9/10 times it’s the corporate marketing machine that gets them that way and the other 1/10 times it’s actual raw talent.
Also, there are other artists out there that are not hugely rich like the ones you named, do you still strip away their rights as well?
Most of those minor artists aren’t making their money recording an album full of the same song and then lying back milking the copyright system for all it’s worth, they’re making it by getting out there, playing lots of music and being creative.
The simple fact is the vast bulk of artists – just like the vast bulk of people doing other things – aren’t going to become rich and famous unless they’re exceptionally talented or exceptionally lucky (despite the massively unfair advantage copyright gives them over other types of producers).
I’m sorry, it is obvious that you aren’t an artist of any type.
I’m not, but I know quite a few. All of them, at the heart of it, want nothing more than to do something they enjoy doing. Some, to a lesser extent, also want spread their art far and wide.
I’ve not met an artist yet whose primary interest was becoming rich and famous.
Well lets say there stupid DRM realy works how many people will use windows @ home or M$ Office ? there is not one single person that will pay all that money people will look for alternatives! like Openoffice and linux most people use windows because its installed on there pc when they bought it but use all software they have downloaded it somwhere no one is gona pay all that cash every yeah for a new version of office and there marketshare will drop eventually !
You’re forgetting that a) most people don’t pay a great deal of money for Windows, Office, etc because they get it OEM with a new machine and b) most people (outside of business) don’t upgrade/buy a new version.
All this talk about “protecting the artists” is bull.
I don’t give a damn if Brittney Spears goes broke and has to find herself a real job. I don’t give a damn if there will be no more cool movies in the cinemas because they can’t afford those multi-million productions anymore. I don’t give a damn if there will be no more huge concerts with megawatt lightshows. I don’t give a damn.
I do care about whether my child will be able to inform him/herself about any subject, from any point of view, instead of getting state-approved information spoon-fed. I do care about his/her right of free speech, and spreading his/her opinion even if controversal. I do care if whistleblowers are gagged by a technology that “secures” the documents they are working with. I do care if OS monopolists can cement their position of power for all eternity by a user-lock-in at a scale most of you can’t even imagine.
All this does not have to happen, but strong DRM and TCPA are certainly the tool to make it happen – and experience should show every single one of us that greed for power is unlimited in its amorality.
This isn’t about whether you will be allowed to file-share the latest Jackson album. This is about whether we want to give the tools for “perfect” censorship into the hands of the mighty.
But I know, no-one will listen, and one day we will realize our world did not perish with a bang, but a whimper.
“Next thing you’ll be hearing is how advanced weapons actually promote peace and love.
Yep.
WAR IS PEACE. ”
Actually, this has already happened. Ever heard of the MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) policy that the former USSR and US had during the cold war years? Before START I, (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty v1), the estemated nuclear payload shared between the US and USSR was estemated to be enough to send at least 1 nuclear warhead to every town with a population above 10,000 residents. The human race had the capability at one point to wipe all life off of earth 7 times over. In the mean time, since the passage of START II, and START III, the nuclear payload has been reduced substancially, but the capability to completly elimitate all known life from this planet is still a factor that we live with.
Through the MAD policy, the consiquences of a global nuclear war was (and still is) made so horrible that no nation (either the USSR and the Warsaw Pact, or the US and the North Atlantic Treaty Orginisation) would dare fire the first shot in the “last war”. As we know, this policy did work. If it would have not been successful, I would not have posted this response, and I would have been long dead now.
Also, on your sarcastic remark on “WAR IS PEACE”, it actually is. By declaring war on an enemy common to peoples of one nation, the people focus thier fighting on the declared enemy instead of each other. A good example of this is the history of the British Isle. During thier earlier history, England and Scotland were seperate countries. Before the british desired to aquire scotland, the scotish people would regularly have “clan wars” against each other. These “wars” went on for 100’s of years. However, once the English decided to expand thier territory onto the rest of the island, the scottish people were united against a common enemy which at that time would have been the English. Yes, they eventually did lose thier soverntey, but the focus of an invading army forced the prevously battiling clans to unite against a common enemy. In this sence, war against the English actually promoted peace among the clans of scotland.
Also, you sarcasticly mentioned how weapons promote peace and love. Promoting love, they do not. In fact they often promote hatred, fear, and feeling of opression. However, they do provide security, and peace. A good way to think of it is that 2 people have houses close to each other, and they are united in thier solidarity. Each house is heavily armed with several .44 Magnum pistols, 12 gauge shotguns, M16 rifles, and 2000 rounds for each rifle. For the purpose of this example, assume that each household knows how to properly use each firearm, and the residences are gaurded 24 hours around the clock on rotating gaurd shifts. Now suppose that a potential thief/arsonist enters the neiborhood to steal from the occupants of the 2 homes, and torch the place to hide the evidence. If the theif/arsonist is aware of the heavy security and armament of the residents, that theif/arsonist will not attempt the crime, for he knows that to do so would ensure his own death. Therefore, the presence of the heavy armament and security has infact promoted peace and security.
So yes, even your remarks that you were propably not anticipating an adequate response to were actually accurate. Peace can come through weapons, and war actually does make peace. It is hard to grasp, but it is a fact.
@ k_semmler:
You don’t happen to be a US citizen, do you?
> Also, you sarcasticly mentioned how weapons promote
> peace and love. […] However, they do provide security,
> and peace.
Bull.
In Germany, posession of firearms is strictly regulated. The number of firearms per 100,000 citizens is almost neglectable. Less people die from firearms here than in the US, where every redneck is allowed to possess a veritable armory.
Even in the US, the chance to get killed is much higher if you have firearms in the house. More people die from their own firearms than from weapons the tresspasser brought with him / her.
You chose a very poor example here.
People in the US lobby for “weapons for everyone”, but it doesn’t make their lifes safer. It just pushes them down a spiral of violence, and all they have is a feeling of power when they brainlessly terraform the shooting range.
It’s the same with RIAA, MPAA, and DRM. They want it because they think it will make them more profit. All they will achieve is pushing everyone down a spiral of oppression, violation of privacy, and violation of your rights. All they will have is the feeling of power because they will be in control of *your* computer.
Thanks for proving our point.
quote:
“A good way to think of it is that 2 people have houses close to each other, and they are united in thier solidarity. Each house is heavily armed with several .44 Magnum pistols, 12 gauge shotguns, M16 rifles, and 2000 rounds for each rifle. For the purpose of this example, assume that each household knows how to properly use each firearm, and the residences are gaurded 24 hours around the clock on rotating gaurd shifts. Now suppose that a potential thief/arsonist enters the neiborhood to steal from the occupants of the 2 homes, and torch the place to hide the evidence. If the theif/arsonist is aware of the heavy security and armament of the residents, that theif/arsonist will not attempt the crime, for he knows that to do so would ensure his own death. Therefore, the presence of the heavy armament and security has infact promoted peace and security.”
Right!…. The presence of these heavy weapons could also make thiefs more violent and dangerous to the lives of the civilians there, and they would kill much faster because they would have to or they get killed themselves.
I completly agree with solar, and in your system of peace there will always be deadly accidents. Geez, there happen already enough accidents in the US with guns atm. People should not have guns, there are always fights between people, couples , etc. It’s a drama when someone who looses control has a gun in his posession.
Other weapons like knifes, etc. take much more to do the act of hurting someone and they are obviously less dangerous. It ain’t hard to pull a trigger :s
I don’t condone stealing; I’m a musician and a writer and I want my own work protected and respect others for wanting the same. But I’d observe that this area, which is essentially police work, is perfect for Microsoft, just what they should be doing with their bully size power.
There are many laws which don’t sit right when applied out of context, “drug forfeiture laws”, for example, and even worse, the Patriot Act. Down the road the repercussions of this form of EMBEDDED policing will hurt people in ways we can barely imagine now, pre-deployment of DRM.
But you are so wrong, copying a piece of music from someone else is the EXACT same thing as walking into a music store and taking a CD off the shelf… there just happens to be a much smaller chance of a person getting in trouble the first way.
You are right, the joy of being an artist is the actual making of the music. And it is also a wonderful feeling when people like your music enough that it is being traded on P2P networks. But it is also someone’s profession.
You, just about ALL of you, are trying to justify stealing music, movies, whatever, boiling it down to ‘oh, well they are filthy stinkin rich anyway’. You all act as if it is YOUR right to STEAL this music, but it is not. You have only brainwashed yourself into thinking this because it is so easy to steal it, and the chances of getting into trouble for it are minimal.
Regaurdless of you what you think, believe, or have brainwashed yourself into thinking, you ARE breaking the law. You ARE stealing from other people. You ARE acting as a criminal.
Note: This is not to say that I agree with the terms of DRM licenses. I was actually interested in buying the major bulk of my music which have downloaded in the past from some of the newer online services, such as iTunes or Napster, however, they have recently gotten more restrictive on thier licensing (thank you RIAA).
The DRM should be there, but it should not restrict you beyond what you could do if you went to a store and bought the actual CD.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040503164033910
Also about open standards…
The biggest reason for the right to bear arms is so if at some point we, as the people of America, have become hopelessly unhappy with our government, we can do something about it.
There are obviously other reaons.
You also have to remember, the person who goes and legally buys a gun is not USUALLY the same kind of person who goes on a killing spree, robs banks, etc. The person who goes and does such things are the same people who ILLEGALLY obtain guns. The only thing gun laws do is make it harder for a criminal to get one, plain and simply.
But you are so wrong, copying a piece of music from someone else is the EXACT same thing as walking into a music store and taking a CD off the shelf… there just happens to be a much smaller chance of a person getting in trouble the first way.
No, it’s not, and the reason is implicit in the definition of stealing – and the only reason why it’s considered “bad” at all.
Stealing means taking something from someone else, such that they no longer have it. That’s why it is bad. Copying is not stealing.
You are right, the joy of being an artist is the actual making of the music. And it is also a wonderful feeling when people like your music enough that it is being traded on P2P networks. But it is also someone’s profession.
And…?
You, just about ALL of you, are trying to justify stealing music, movies, whatever, boiling it down to ‘oh, well they are filthy stinkin rich anyway’.
No, I’m not, because:
a) It’s not stealing.
b) Lots of the people involved aren’t rich.
c) Personally, I rarely do it anyway and almost always (I’d says “always, but it’s possible one or two things have crept in that don’t fit the following definition) only to things that either I already own or were [also] available through other “freely available” sources like radio or TV. No-one is ever going to make me feel guilty about recording songs off the radio or shows off the TV.
You all act as if it is YOUR right to STEAL this music, but it is not.
No, I act as if the ability to copy easily is an unavoidable side effect, which is precisely what it is.
You have only brainwashed yourself into thinking this because it is so easy to steal it, and the chances of getting into trouble for it are minimal.
I can justify copying for personal, non-profit use morally, ethically, logically and practically. You, OTOH, have yet to offer any concrete justifications for your position other than “it’s stealing” (which it isn’t) and “it’s illegal” (which, depending on jurisdiction and time frame, may or may not be true).
Regaurdless of you what you think, believe, or have brainwashed yourself into thinking, you ARE breaking the law. You ARE stealing from other people. You ARE acting as a criminal.
I am not stealing from anyone. I might be breaking the law, depending on the jurisdiction (here in Australia it’s not even legal to time-shift TV shows, or create mix CDs from CDs you already own, for example). However, the law is not, and should never be considered, self-justifying. “Because it’s illegal” is never sufficient reason for not doing something. If that’s the best someone can do, chances are pretty damn high it’s a bad law.
Note: This is not to say that I agree with the terms of DRM licenses. I was actually interested in buying the major bulk of my music which have downloaded in the past from some of the newer online services, such as iTunes or Napster, however, they have recently gotten more restrictive on thier licensing (thank you RIAA).
I’m interested in buying music as well, I’m just not interested in buying it at the ridiculous prices the music industry asks for it, and then seeing the bulk of that money not going to the person who created it. That’s why I spend the majority of my music-oriented money on live shows.
The DRM should be there, but it should not restrict you beyond what you could do if you went to a store and bought the actual CD.
But US legislation and the “industry standard” has already done that. DRM is merely a semantic implementation detail.
In Germany, posession of firearms is strictly regulated. The number of firearms per 100,000 citizens is almost neglectable. Less people die from firearms here than in the US, where every redneck is allowed to possess a veritable armory.
There are several countries where firearm ownership is as high, if not higher, than the US that also have very low rates of deaths from firearms. Heck, Canada is on the same continent, has a similar level of gun ownership and *much* lower levels of gun violence.
You chose a very poor example here.
As did you. The problem isn’t gun ownership, it’s culture. It’s trivial to show than rates of gun ownership and rates of gun deaths are *completely* unrelated.
America has so many gun deaths because of its conservative, repressed, right-wing society. If they weren’t shooting each other, they’d be stabbing each other, or knocking each other’s heads off with baseball bats.
Even in the US, the chance to get killed is much higher if you have firearms in the house. More people die from their own firearms than from weapons the tresspasser brought with him / her.
Again, cultural. The difference between keeping guns locked up and tightly controlled (but still widespread) vs sleeping with a loaded pistol under the pillow.
People in the US lobby for “weapons for everyone”, but it doesn’t make their lifes safer.
Actually it does. Some of the safest places to be in the US are the places where getting a license to carry a concealed weapon is easiest (ie: eveyrone might be walking around with a gun in their pocket).
Anyway, this is very off-topic. The short version is, gun ownership and gun deaths don’t even share a *corrolated* relationship, let alone a *causative* one.