Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

361 comments

Again? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30654088)

Online music distribution is picking up now that DRM is fading away, and the movie industry wants to up the encryption? Seriously?

Re:Again? (2, Insightful)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654210)

Considering that the music companies would love nothing better than to have a locked down, you are completely renting it, means for digital distribution- they just realized that the bulk of their customers won't put up with it. If they thought for a moment that they could get away with some new DRM means, the un-DRMed music would vanish in a puff of smoke.

Don't for one second think that the battle is "won" over DRM in the music space.

Re:Again? (4, Insightful)

DJRumpy (1345787) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654360)

I found this part particular amusing:

"But the effort still has a long way to go before it can claim anything like success. The proof will be whether it revives home entertainment sales by getting consumers excited about the new freedoms of the digital world."

Really? New Freedoms? What crack are these people smoking? How delusional have they become? People rip these things of the disks because of the stranglehold these studios are attempting to put there. Once ripped, they can play them when and wherever they way. They already overcharge for content. Once it's digital the costs to the manufacturer drop and profit soars yet the consumer doesn't see any of that. We're still paying $10 bucks for a CD (sans the CD) how many years later?

People see the 'value' of an Audio CD or a movie and they know they are overpriced. The digital forms of that just enforce that opinion.

The whole economics of today seems like it's paying only for exorbitant CEO profits and studio whoring.

Re:Again? (5, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654468)

What worries me is not so much the attempted sale of "DECE enabled" media, people are entitled to their stupid ideas; but what this will mean for hardware.

If the idea of DECE is to have magic-interoperable DRM, than it is clear that they intend to extend this DRM to as many devices and platforms as possible. From the perspective of a DRM system, this is a terrible idea. All it takes is one manufacturer to fuck up on one device model, and the precious "content" is back in the clear.

However, from the perspective of a customer who wants to be able to repurpose/modify/extend/otherwise enjoy free use of his devices, this is a potential disaster. In pretty much all cases, DRM consortia work as follows:

1. Design a DRM scheme, include some "hook IP" that is necessary to implement the scheme; but copyrighted or otherwise legally protected.

2. Force anybody who wishes to implement the scheme, as a condition of licencing the "hook IP" to agree to certain terms and conditions, including "platform robustness" requirements, in the attempt to prevent the one-weak-implementation-leaks-everything problem.

That's the issue. If this takes off, virtually every common consumer device that happens to touch media in any significant way(set top boxes, media players, multifunction routers, PMPs, etc, etc, etc.) will be produced subject to "platform robustness" requirements. Goodbye third-party-firmware development.

Obviously, there will still be some hacking here and there, they can't stop that; but it could easily be the kiss of death for the vibrant, productive, (and legal) hacking and extension communities like OpenWRT and rockbox. You'll still be able to get a cracked firmware(if you have a hardware revision 4353 manufactured on week 567 and know which warez group to ask around in, so the DRM won't actually stop anything); but being easily able to modify your own devices, even for perfectly legal and legitimate ends, could well end up being a casualty.

Re:Again? (2, Interesting)

marcansoft (727665) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654714)

Au contraire, experience with game consoles suggests the opposite: hardware hackers wanting to run their own firmware will still do so (and with complex systems like these there will be holes), and then people who want to work around the DRM will piggyback on their efforts. The most notable difference will be that the latter will be those wanting to freely use their media (since people who just want to get free movies will just download them from the internet as they do today, sans DRM), while >90% of people using homebrew hacks to bypass console copy protection are in it for the warez games, which they can't run at all otherwise (non-DRMed media will play anywhere, but warez games will only play on a hacked console, emulators notwithstanding). Or in other words, this will make the resulting hacks somewhat more legit than game console hacks.

Pirating (5, Insightful)

Randseed (132501) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654096)

This sonuds like a good reason why I would want to pirate things rather than buy them. Already the issues with the stupid software DRM that's prevalent all over the place encourage people to either pirate the software or find a crack so that they don't have to deal with it.

Re:Pirating (5, Insightful)

loutr (626763) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654138)

When I get a new DVD, it spends about 15mn outside its box (the time it takes to rip it), then goes back in never to see daylight again. I then watch the content on my HTPC running XBMC. Same goes for music.

The day I can't rip a DVD (or a CD for that matter) is the day I'll stop buying them.

Re:Pirating (0)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654206)

There are two issues:

1. Physical ability to rip the DVD (Weak encryption)
2. Legal right to rip the DVD (Fair use/DMCA)

There is an XKCD strip. I'm sure someone will post it.
Bottom line. Torrent it.

Re:Pirating (2, Funny)

fulldecent (598482) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654272)

In the past: a slastdot post with "i'm too lazy to find this link, someone else can post it" is an automatic -1
Now: a slastdot post with "i'm too lazy to find this XKCD link, someone else can post it" is an automatic +5

Re:Pirating (4, Funny)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654320)

It's a conceptual [wikipedia.org] XKCD link.
The concept of the link takes precedence over traditional aesthetic and material concerns.

Re:Pirating (1)

RDW (41497) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654414)

'Now: a slastdot post with "i'm too lazy to find this XKCD link, someone else can post it" is an automatic +5'

Another XKCD strip (and mouseover) is probably relevant here:

http://xkcd.com/14/ [xkcd.com]

Re:Pirating (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30654494)

I like this

http://xkcd.com/488/

Re:Pirating (2, Insightful)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654496)

Try ripping "Up!". Time to stop buying them.

Re:Pirating (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30654796)

I had no problems ripping "Up!". You must be doing it wrong.

Re:Pirating (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30654818)

That's funny, my ripped copy of Up! works just fine. Thanks AnyDVD!

Re:Pirating (4, Insightful)

Benfea (1365845) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654146)

Yep. The purpose of DRM is to punish legitimate customers.

Re:Pirating (4, Informative)

EastCoastSurfer (310758) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654164)

It's not just stupid DRM, but stupid content controls in general. An example. I wanted to watch Inglorious Bastards so I checked the Xbox marketplace. I see it's available, but wait it's only available to buy - in standard definition no less. Why I can't I rent it? There are tons of other movies to rent. It can be rented at the video store or on netflix, but I can't rent it from the Xbox marketplace. I am trying to pay to rent a movie, and the content providers instead of making it easy for me to do so push me to find it on the internet instead.

Re:Pirating (1)

PrescriptionWarning (932687) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654238)

xbox marketplace is worthless for movie selection and retention anyway, you're better off with netflix or just going to a brick and mortar blockbuster or something

Re:Pirating (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30654408)

Except that netflix won't have that to watch instantly (which is what he wants) and vudu may not either (example as of last night district 9 was not available for rent just SD buy). I simply wait. I can out-wait any corporate cretin marketing clod. If i wanted to see it *that* bad I probably would have made the time to go to the theater like I did for Star Trek.

Now a Brick and mortar is an option if its on the shelf.

Re:Pirating (1)

EastCoastSurfer (310758) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654530)

You're right, the selection isn't great but it's okay for wanting to watch something right now. The last thing I want to do is drive to a brick and mortar store. Netflix also doesn't have it for streaming so that's a no go.

Re:Pirating (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30654268)

It's not just stupid DRM, but stupid content controls in general. An example. I wanted to watch Inglorious Bastards so I checked the Xbox marketplace. I see it's available, but wait it's only available to buy - in standard definition no less. Why I can't I rent it? There are tons of other movies to rent. It can be rented at the video store or on netflix, but I can't rent it from the Xbox marketplace. I am trying to pay to rent a movie, and the content providers instead of making it easy for me to do so push me to find it on the internet instead.

You're the one who sold out to Microsoft and bought an Xbox to begin with. Now you expect to not be screwed? Whiner.

Re:Pirating (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30654354)

Cool story bro

Re:Pirating (1)

EastCoastSurfer (310758) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654544)

You're the one who sold out to Microsoft and bought an Xbox to begin with. Now you expect to not be screwed? Whiner.

So is the movie I wanted to see (Inglorious Bastards) available anywhere for streaming rent? I know it's not on Netflix. PSN?

Re:Pirating (0, Offtopic)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654792)

You're the one who sold out to Microsoft and bought an Xbox to begin with.

Which platform for in-person multiplayer video gaming doesn't involve selling out?

Re:Pirating (1)

horatio (127595) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654382)

I see it's available, but wait it's only available to buy - in standard definition no less. Why I can't I rent it?

I like amazon's music store because they provide actual mp3s. However, I ran into this exact problem with TiVo and Amazon's downloadable movie partnership. As of a couple of years ago when I last tried, many of the movies I wanted to watch either weren't available for download, or were only available for purchase - not rental. It didn't make any sense at all, and was quite frustrating. I want to pay $2.99 to watch a movie once. Not $14.99. So instead, they got neither.

Re:Pirating (5, Informative)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654168)

Well, if you can feel "fair"... Several boxes with games I bought collect dust on the shelf, while I play torrented versions. Not gonna risk putting these in my drive. It took me weeks to get my DVD-RW working fully again after SecuROM bundled with Oblivion broke the drivers beyond repair and I couldn't even make copies of my private data.

Re:Pirating (2, Informative)

AndrewNeo (979708) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654276)

StarForce is the one that breaks disk drives, not SecuROM. At first I was going to protest that Oblivion doesn't even use SecuROM, but apparently the Game of the Year edition does.

Re:Pirating (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654172)

No, this sounds like a good reason why I would write to the big record / movie companies and explain the real reason why I'm not buying their products anymore.

1. I dislike their products. All of them.

Yeah, that's the only reason. Nothing to do with piracy.

Re:Pirating (4, Insightful)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654176)

Rather than looking for new and better ways to make money, they would rather do their damnedest to try to prop up their old ways of doing things, doing vast quantities of damage unto themselves and the consumers- and in the end, capitulating and finding a way to make good money in the new scheme of things.

They did it with VCRs and audio cassettes.

They can do it with digital distribution- they've just got to quit trying to control things the way they're used to. It no longer works well and they can't figure out they've got to change, right along with their customer base.

Re:Pirating (1)

fulldecent (598482) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654258)

I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas

Is that what it says in your constitution?

Plays for Sure! (5, Insightful)

Peter Simpson (112887) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654180)

“Consumers shouldn’t have to know what’s inside,” he said. “They should just know it will play.”

Yeah. Except when it doesn't. No internet connection? No movie for you. Rights locker company hit by power failure? No movies for anyone.
If I "buy" a movie, I expect it to play whenever and wherever I want to watch it...in an airplane, on a boat or in a cave; and without the requirement for internet connectivity or an external "permission" server. I'm fine with those constraints if I'm renting a movie online, but purchase, at a higher price, should mean reduced restrictions on transport and use, in addition to the rights to play multiple times.

And let's not even think about the "oops, we have decided to discontinue this DRM scheme in favor of a new, incompatible one" scenario, which obsoletes your player and movie collection.

Re:Plays for Sure! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30654246)

in addition to the rights to play multiple times

Not to forget: The right to sell it to someone else, even after the rights management company has long ceased to exist.

Re:Plays for Sure! (5, Insightful)

click2005 (921437) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654298)

Yeah. Except when it doesn't. No internet connection? No movie for you. Rights locker company hit by power failure? No movies for anyone.

You also forgot...

Rights locker company files for bankruptcy
Rights locker company decides to stop supporting this specific DRM scheme (like PlaysForSure)
Rights locker company upgrading the DRM to DECEv2
Someone hacks the device you're using and they decide to revoke keys in devices without a hardware upgrade
The movie studio decides that 'buying' a movie means you only get to play it an arbitrary number of times

Re:Pirating (4, Interesting)

Moryath (553296) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654250)

The amount of software I have a "cracked" version of running on my PC coincides in a scary manner (>85%) with the amount of software I have discs for sitting on my shelf.

The remainder I have either (a) lost the disc for or (b) had the floppy go bad.

Why so many of them cracked? In the case of games, so I don't have to get out the disc and use the DVD drive as a fucking 5 1/4" dongle just to play all the content that's been loaded to my hard drive anyways. In the case of the software, so I can disable the neverending stream of "UPDATE ME UPDATE ME UPDATE ME" crap and just use the software for what I need it for.

And don't tell me it really constantly needs to check for updates. It's phoning home just to fucking phone home.

They turn around and do this with "digital media" files, I don't bother with them any more. "Rights locker" my ass.

Re:Pirating (4, Insightful)

purpledinoz (573045) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654322)

It's glaringly obvious that this concept is already doomed to fail. So, what incentive do consumers have to buy this new hardware? This hardware is not going to be cheap, and no one will be willing to pay huge subsidies to make it attractive to customers. And what real value does this add for the customer, compared to another DRM free device that plays everything, say.... a cheap laptop with HDMI output. Oh, and it plays all movies, except from Disney.

The movie and TV companies need to take advantage of their huge catalog. If downloads were cheap (say $20 for a certain 20h of content), DRM free, and access to ALL movies and TV shows ever made, I would sign up in a heart-beat. Additional value can be added by a netflix type rating and recommendation system, and channels which are pre-programmed. The key is to add additional value on top of the content itself, which piracy has pretty much pushed down to almost 0.

Re:Pirating (1)

jridley (9305) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654390)

This is nothing new. Back in the 80s and games on 5.25" floppy disk, I bought my games (hardly anyone did, despite copy protection systems), but I would not buy any game unless it either didn't have copy protection (there was hardly any such thing) or I could get a copy with the copy protection broken.

EVERY time I bought a game, I wrote to the company telling them that I would have bought the title sooner, but I refused to buy anything with copy protection on it, and I had to wait until I could find a cracked copy on the BBS before I bought mine. I sent the letters in along with the registration card to show that they did get my money.

These days, I just don't give anyone money for anything with DRM on it. eBooks, I buy only non-DRMed copies which means I don't get to see a lot of stuff (and they don't get my money) or PD stuff. Movies, well, I consider CSS pretty much the same thing as "no copy protection". Music, I just buy on CD - I don't listen to it on CD, but CD is a nice high quality backup. If someone was selling FLAC instead of a lossy format I might buy that.

bad joke (2, Funny)

DJCouchyCouch (622482) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654120)

DECE? More like FECE!

As in, poop.

Get it?

Oh never mind. :)

Re:bad joke (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30654148)

Don't you mean "crappy" joke?

Re:bad joke (1)

JustOK (667959) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654576)

Maybe he was trying for turd post.

Doing it right (1)

Dishwasha (125561) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654128)

Hardware encryption would work okay if the studio's weren't so cheap and buy bottom-rate technology that takes mere days to map with an electron-microscope.

Re:Doing it right (1)

TheTurtlesMoves (1442727) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654182)

It still wouldn't work. How much torrents are telesyncs, or from other sources that automatically bypass anything on BluRay or DVD. BlueRay rips are available almost same day as release anyway regardless of being better protected than CSS.

Re:Doing it right (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654200)

Or if anyone is too lazy to read between the lines, this will only result in masses of pirated DVDs come out of China, where most of the designs being sold by Chinese "IC design" companies are actually stolen from someone else; either they were involved in the design and stole it, or it's a microscope-scanned product. When I worked for Silicon Engineering, they'd just had a current chip design stolen by some Chinese fuckers who were running them off by the thousand. The Chinese probably have more experience reverse-engineering ICs from what can be seen than anyone else on the planet as a result. They've been copying designs without permission since the industrial age, when they were turning out copies of machine tools that were so faithful they had the same flaws as the originals.

Read the EULA (1)

sskinnider (1069312) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654130)

You will have to read the EULA VERY CAREFULLY before buying any device with DECE capability. It is very likely that Hollywood will leave you with no rights after installing one of these devices.

Re:Read the EULA (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654166)

"You will have to read the EULA VERY CAREFULLY before buying any device with DECE capability."

Easily dealt with by not buying! :)

Re:Read the EULA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30654184)

"It is very likely that Hollywood will leave you with no rights after installing one of these devices."

That is why whenever I pirate a movie I send the studio a cheque of licensed money. They can use the money only in ways
I define (subject to change daily).

I don't want physical copies anymore (2, Interesting)

MosesJones (55544) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654132)

Now in order to get lynched I'm going to start with a statement

I don't care if they put these restrictions on

But I'll add a caveat...

As long as I can play it on any device that I own with only a single payment

My ideal these days would be to just buy a license (and I use the term deliberately) and for them to store the content in their cloud and for me (in a Steam type way) to then be able to activate that content on my various different devices. If I could get rid of all my DVDs and have a single, secure, backed up place where my devices can connect and download the content for local playing then I'd be much happier.

Otherwise I'm not playing. I don't want physical copies, I want stuff on disk and in the cloud, and if they don't do it for me then I'm already doing it for myself.

Re:I don't want physical copies anymore (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30654316)

Possession is 90 percent of ownership. If you give up the control over the data, you effectively lose ownership of the data. We can certainly imagine ways a remote server could hold "your" movies for you, but it will not work the way you or I would like it to. (The same goes for cloud computing, but that is another topic.) If you're talking about renting, I can get behind the streaming instead of downloading argument, but if I am supposed to pay for ownership, then I want to be in possession of the data, in a form that does not depend on external sources.

Re:I don't want physical copies anymore (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30654368)

They would never do that though because it would cost them in terms of bandwidth every time the data is accessed and they have no recurring charges from the licensees.

It works for Steam because 99% of the time the software is installed on one machine and that's it. Partly because that's all the normal person needs and partly because the downloads are so large relative to common Net connections that nobody wants to spend the time to redownload it anyway.

Re:I don't want physical copies anymore (2, Insightful)

h890231398021 (948231) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654374)

My ideal these days would be to just buy a license (and I use the term deliberately) and for them to store the content in their cloud and for me (in a Steam type way) to then be able to activate that content on my various different devices.

You don't really want this because the content providers' notion of their "content" will certainly include stuff like those unskippable ads and other crap that drive you insane. With the content stored "in the could" as you propose, there's likely no way around this type of annoyance, and in fact with the content in the cloud they can change the ads, add additional ones, etc. whenever they like. And don't for a minute think they won't try to extract additional money from you by "licensing" you the stream for only a certain amount of time, after which you need to renew, etc.

But I don't want DRM either.. (2, Insightful)

js_sebastian (946118) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654404)

I don't want physical copies either. When I get a CD I insert in my laptop and it opens sound juicer and rips it to mp3 so I can play it everywhere. At this point, I have no use for the plastic anymore. But I want DRM even less.

Now in order to get lynched I'm going to start with a statement

I don't care if they put these restrictions on

But I'll add a caveat...

As long as I can play it on any device that I own with only a single payment

And what about re-sale? can you sell it to me? can you leave it to your grandchildren? How about:

As long as it can be played on any device I or anyone else owns or may own in the future that supports an open standard?

That pretty much rules out DRM. An open standard is a standard that anyone can implement, with no (significant) barriers to entry. Otherwise the word "open" is just newspeak for closed.

Re:I don't want physical copies anymore (1)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654420)

Steam is just as bad, because your content is only available through the "steam device", not "any device", and there is only one company that produces "steam devices".

Re:I don't want physical copies anymore (1)

MistrBlank (1183469) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654506)

Actually... Steam is worse. There are a large number of games that in addition to the DRM of requiring Steam to play the game you bought, SecureROM titles are showing up and include activation limits.... what BULLSHIT.

Take a look at GTA 4 or Crysis on Steam. Fortunately, Valve is openly stating on the product page that it includes SecureROM, they're not hiding it (yet).

Re:I don't want physical copies anymore (1)

pfleming (683342) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654424)

FTA Disney is not participating. Of course it's so they can continue their limited time offers of movies and return them "to the vault" for another 10 years. This would put their movies on the same footing as everyone else's and they've managed to turn the "scarcity" into a marketing tool and sales enhancer.

Re:I don't want physical copies anymore (1)

Zontar_Thing_From_Ve (949321) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654476)

Now in order to get lynched I'm going to start with a statement

I don't care if they put these restrictions on

But I'll add a caveat...

As long as I can play it on any device that I own with only a single payment

I'm sure a lot of people agree with you, but here's the problem. Hollywood to date releases these "digital copies" with DVD purchases so you can play it on your PC, phone, whatever. The dirty little secret is that the digital copies all expire within a few months. So this whole idea requires you to have faith that a group of people who have yet to do the right thing will suddenly do the right thing. I don't see it. My guess is that they will indeed come up with a workable way for the movies to work on multiple devices, but they will still expire because Hollywood really and truly
JUST DOES NOT GET IT
and I don't think they ever will. Remember, consumers are now and always have been the enemy.

Re:I don't want physical copies anymore (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654756)

I'll come out and say that I agree with you... in theory. In theory, I wish I could pay a price and then be able to see my purchased movie anywhere. Real-world problems interfere with that ideal, however.

Movie studios won't just put the movie up somewhere where I could get it for free. They'll want to make sure that I'm actually authorized to watch the movie. This means they'll rely on DRM. This, in turn, means they're likely to rely on one location for authorizations to take place. If those authorization servers go offline, you lose access to the content you've paid for and need to pay again for access to it. In addition, movie studios aren't going to want to run servers letting you download a file over and over for one small payment. They'll want recurring payments.

This is why I think that streaming is the better option. Something along the lines of Netflix. Pay a fee and get access to the library of content. As long as you pay your monthly fee, you can watch as many movies/TV shows/whatever as your plan allows. (I'd prefer unlimited, but we are talking about movie studios here.) There should be many different companies doing this providing access to the same content. This way competition will keep prices low and quality high. (Besides, I'm sure the movie studios don't want Netflix to be to them what Apple/iTunes was to the music industry.)

Of course, I already have a Netflix account and love streaming via Roku, so I'm mostly there. Now if the movie studios would just get with the times and let their content be streamed. Heck, I'd even accept a 6 month lag on DVD release versus streaming release if they're that concerned with streaming cutting into DVD profits!

Depends on how big (1)

JerryLove (1158461) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654156)

What if ICANN goes under? The internet goes down. Many things we rely on depend on some company staying up.

*If* there's a multi-major-corporation committment to a central repository (which the article discusses), then the only real issues may be of posterirty, or deleberate revocation of rights.

If, on the other hand, individual vendors do their own validation: then as the Slashdot snippit suggests, we are at the mercy of the corporate whims, as was seen with so many DRM music sites.

Re:Depends on how big (2, Insightful)

fearlezz (594718) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654274)

Just imagine old LP Albums having DRM. What company would still support servers to unlock those? Not even whe biggest multi-major-corp commitment would allow me to play records if this kinds of DRM would have been possible 80 years ago.

Re:Depends on how big (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30654332)

All of my phonograph cylinders stopped working when Edison Records went under in 1929.

Re:Depends on how big (1)

mellon (7048) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654690)

The difference is that there has to be a revenue stream to support the company. If the DRM becomes obsolete, the revenue stream dries up. As that point it's only a matter of time before your media stops working. ICANN's revenue stream is not at risk, because we have to pay every year to renew our domains, and ICANN gets a cut.

Re:Depends on how big (1)

itsdapead (734413) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654692)

What if ICANN goes under? The internet goes down.

...and lots of big, influential businesses start losing money hand over fist* so Something Gets Done About It very rapidly.

If the central DRM provider goes under then lots of little, uninfluential people** have to buy The Matrix again and lots of big, influential businesses make money hand over fist. Lots of crocodile tears - but all they do is make the champagne taste salty.

*especially true in the case of the porn industry :-)

**who waived any guarantee of lifetime access to their purchases when they clicked through the EULA.

more like an end run around Apple (1)

alen (225700) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654174)

while visiting the in-laws i actually thought about buying some cartoons on iTunes since they don't have a DVR and my son needed his Dora, Oso and Little Einsteins. This is more like an open encryption standard for online purchases than increasing DRM. of course Apple won't support it so anything you buy from itunes will only play on apple hardware/software. for everything else you will just buy a commodity box like a Roku and buy the content from anywhere on the internet and take it with you

Great! (1)

fearlezz (594718) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654188)

A new challenge. Lets see if it stands for more than a week.

Re:Great! (1)

Aklyon (1398879) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654292)

a week? i say half a week or less.

This is ALMOST good. (1)

muyshiny (944250) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654198)

All I ever wanted was to buy the LICENCE to the content which is what I'm really paying for and nevermind about how I get a copy. I want to sign up somewhere that I have a lifetime personal use licence to say, The Matrix. Maybe I get a free download of the DVD quality file. Maybe I need to pay $1 or so on top of the licence if I want to download a full BluRay of it to offset costs, etc. Why is this so hard of an argument for them? OH RIGHT. They don't want to sell me licences because then they can't sell me the same content over and over, I'd only licence it once. Rather than give this up and adopt something rational, they instead insist on pursuing these crazy schemes and wasting gobs of money and everyone's time.

Re:This is ALMOST good. (1)

russotto (537200) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654520)

All I ever wanted was to buy the LICENCE to the content which is what I'm really paying for and nevermind about how I get a copy. I want to sign up somewhere that I have a lifetime personal use licence to say, The Matrix.

You really want to enter into a license agreement with Hollywood? That's like accepting net points on a movie production; it's just asking to be cheated. Let's say you get your lifetime personal use license to "The Matrix". Well, you've got the license, but if you actually want to play it, you'll have to get the content somehow... that's going to cost extra. Per play. And that lifetime? That won't be your lifetime, or the copyright's lifetime.. that will be arbitrary thing they made up, like 1 year beyond the time they offer new Matrix licenses. Oh, the new Matrix Extra Special Producer's Cut? Sorry bud, that's not the same as "The Matrix" you bought, so you can't play that one (and when the ESPC came out, the original was discontinued, so you've got a year left on your "lifetime").

Even if you get an army of lawyers to write the agreement and manage to avoid any blatant cheating, they'll still cheat. They'll have "The Matrix" licensed by "Matrix Licensing Company Inc.". When they want everyone to re-buy the movie, "Matrix Licensing Company Inc." will go into bankruptcy, leaving all those licenses invalid. Then of course "Matrix Rescue Company Inc." will buy "substantially all the assets" of "Matrix Licensing Company Inc.", and offer new licenses to everyone.

Re:This is ALMOST good. (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654668)

They don't want to sell me licences because then they can't sell me the same content over and over

They can only sell you the same content over and over if you agree to buy the same content over and over. They're not forcing you.

DRM hurts legitimate customers only (5, Insightful)

sanosuke001 (640243) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654202)

DRM only hurts the legitimate customers. The people pirating get around it. The content owners spend millions of dollars (if not more) to create better encryption that is cracked in months and is then obsolete to try and keep pirates from doing their thing (which never works) but the only thing they succeed in doing is pissing off their actual customers.

I was at home for christmas and wanted to watch a Blu-Ray movie on my laptop and output it to my parent's HDTV. Connected up an HDMI cable and PowerDVD 9 said it could only run on the primary display. I disabled the laptop display and tried again; now it said that the display connected was incompatible or some such nonsense (DRM non-compliant). If I had just pirated my movie, I wouldn't have had a problem.

Re:DRM hurts legitimate customers only (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30654314)

DRM only hurts the legitimate customers. The people pirating get around it. The content owners spend millions of dollars (if not more) to create better encryption that is cracked in months and is then obsolete to try and keep pirates from doing their thing (which never works) but the only thing they succeed in doing is pissing off their actual customers.

I was at home for christmas and wanted to watch a Blu-Ray movie on my laptop and output it to my parent's HDTV. Connected up an HDMI cable and PowerDVD 9 said it could only run on the primary display. I disabled the laptop display and tried again; now it said that the display connected was incompatible or some such nonsense (DRM non-compliant). If I had just pirated my movie, I wouldn't have had a problem.

Not to blow any trumpet here, but since your using windows ala windows in bed with DRM ( in article M$ is number one in the new line up of idiots in the band ), would you get the same from Linux / FOSS solution?

Anyone care to hazard a guess? anyone?

Re:DRM hurts legitimate customers only (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654430)

Any legal solution, yes. Anyone that has the keys to create software to decrypt BluRay legally has agreed to only output the video over a HDCP-enabled video connection. His parents' TV doesn't support that, so no legal solution would be able to play it on that TV.

Re:DRM hurts legitimate customers only (2, Informative)

grimJester (890090) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654570)

His parent's TV may well support HDCP. It doesn't always work.

Re:DRM hurts legitimate customers only (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30654498)

If there was a way to actually play* blurays in linux, then the drm thing probably wouldn't be an issue.

* play directly that is, not rip

Re:DRM hurts legitimate customers only (1)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654394)

It's always been easier to not follow rules than it is to follow them.

It's easier to not pay taxes (less forms to fill in)
It's easier to not follow the street lights (you get there faster, if at all)
It's easier not to care about others (less worries)

Not that I like DRM, but the argument doesn't hold water.

Re:DRM hurts legitimate customers only (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30654628)

They're not cogent analogies. By filling in the forms, the correct taxes can be collected; by following road markings, you keep yourself and other road users safer. DRM is supposed to be an anti-piracy measure, but it only affects those who don't pirate. The DRM on the legitimate copy of a movie has no bearing whatsoever on those who chose to download it, since the ripped form is DRM free (and the people doing the ripping invariably have the expertise to bypass any method of protection). Thus there is no benefit to anyone - pirates aren't hurt by it, and so the copyright holders can't expect more legitimate sales.

Perhaps a better analogy would be the government adding new, unnecessarily complicated tax forms to try and stop people not filling in their tax forms.

Re:DRM hurts legitimate customers only (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654630)

...except ignoring DRM doesn't do any harm to anyone.

It doesn't deprive the state of revenue.
It does not increase the chance I will KILL someone.
It does not require me to ignore the plight of my fellow man.

All ignoring DRM does is make you something other than a 1984 style floormat.

Re:DRM hurts legitimate customers only (4, Insightful)

slifox (605302) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654638)

The problem is all your examples are very short-sighted:

It's easier to not pay taxes (less forms to fill in)

If you don't pay taxes, that's less money towards schools, infrastructure maintenance, police/firefighter salaries, etc -- all of society loses, including you.
Furthermore, if you don't pay taxes, you'll probably get audited, fined, and maybe even jailed.

It's easier to not follow the street lights (you get there faster, if at all)

If you don't follow streetlights, you risk getting into a car crash, possibly injuring or killing yourself, other drivers, or even innocent bystanders (e.g. children walking to school) -- all of society loses, including you.
Furthermore, if you run streetlights, you'll probably get pulled over, fined, and maybe even jailed.

It's easier not to care about others (less worries)

If you don't care about others, they are less likely to care about you. If you act like an ass to others, they're more likely to act like an ass towards you -- both parties lose (unless you like being treated like crap).
If everyone in society didn't care about anyone else, then all of society would lose.

So tell me, who do I hurt if I pay once for a CD or DVD, then rip or pirate it and play the unlocked files on any/every device I own? Who do I hurt when I lend my copy to a friend (who, if he finds he likes it, may even purchase his own copy)?

The answer is no one -- the artists and businessmen who made and sold the product were fairly compensated, and I get to enjoy their work. What DRM does is help the businessmen charge me once for each device I want to play it on, and that hurts _me_

Re:DRM hurts legitimate customers only (1)

azgard (461476) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654734)

It holds water a bit, in fact.

The reason why we punish all these things is that we perceive them as unjust. Likewise, under normal circumstances, customers should perceive as unjust that they paid for something while someone pirated it. But in this case, they perceive as more unjust that they have to hoop through additional loops on top of that. It's a cure worse than a disease problem.

Re:DRM hurts legitimate customers only (1)

mellon (7048) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654744)

Nope, it's your rejoinder that doesn't hold water. If I couldn't pay taxes without special TaxBux [tm], and if I went out and bought some TaxBux and it turned out that they weren't compatible with the IRS office in my state, then you'd have a similar situation.

Also, when was the last time you had to follow the rules to eat a banana? Sure, you bought the banana from someone, and that was following the rules, just like buying a DVD is following the rules. But once you had the banana, you could just eat it. There was no question as to whether the banana would be compatible with your digestive system. DRM that doesn't work with a monitor that's supposed to support that kind of DRM is like a banana you can't eat.

Re:DRM hurts legitimate customers only (1)

ilsaloving (1534307) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654790)

Your comparisons arn't even close to realistic. You are citing "rules" that are intended to maintain order and and facilitate a co-operative, functioning society. You actually even cite a 'rule' that defines people's ability to empathize with each other.

The fact that you seem to confuse that with "rules" that clearly and deliberately harm society for the sole benefit of a companies coffers, frightens me.

Re:DRM hurts legitimate customers only (1)

iammani (1392285) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654412)

May be that is their intention. May be they want us to watch it once and throw it away. Let see what supports this...

DRMed content is not valid for ever - Check
Not all devices can play the content - Check
Its Illegal to attempt to break DRM - Check

Re:DRM hurts legitimate customers only (1)

iammani (1392285) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654448)

Ahh dont forget - makes it difficult/impossible to resell the DRMed content (in the case of content delivered through internet) - Check

Re:DRM hurts legitimate customers only (1)

geekmux (1040042) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654672)

DRM only hurts the legitimate customers. The people pirating get around it. The content owners spend millions of dollars (if not more) to create better encryption that is cracked in months and is then obsolete to try and keep pirates from doing their thing (which never works) but the only thing they succeed in doing is pissing off their actual customers. I was at home for christmas and wanted to watch a Blu-Ray movie on my laptop and output it to my parent's HDTV. Connected up an HDMI cable and PowerDVD 9 said it could only run on the primary display. I disabled the laptop display and tried again; now it said that the display connected was incompatible or some such nonsense (DRM non-compliant). If I had just pirated my movie, I wouldn't have had a problem.

Oddly enough(especially of the PowerDVD 9 software came pre-installed), isn't that the ENTIRE purpose of having a Blu-Ray player in a laptop that also has an HDMI output? To watch movies on an external display? Not that this is your fault of course, but it does bring to light a rather obvious issue, which will likely force me to ask others I know with similar hardware to test it.

I'm also curious if you used a client such as VLC media player instead of PowerDVD? Just wondering if it's something within PowerDVD that's kicking off the DRM...

Re:DRM hurts legitimate customers only (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30654718)

AnyDVD will fix that problem for you. Not only can you rip movies with it, it will also shut down the DRM checks that keeps you from doing what you wanted to do with "incompatable/noncompliant hardware".

My personal pet peev these days is all the comercials/previews they are stuffing into DVDs that they expect you to watch by disabling the menu functions until they are done playing.

Rent-rip-strip menues-watch until I'm sick of it-delete

That is the business model I subscribe to.

Apple won't go for it = FAIL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30654218)

apple will never support this for i-tunes, as it would mean no one has to buy there overpriced crap anymore. so there goes the largest market.

Misleading summary (2, Informative)

Mr_Silver (213637) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654224)

The summary is slightly misleading. Yes, it's DRM but it's an effort by the industry to make it so that content purchased in one way (eg. on your PS3) will work on a multitude of other devices which may or may not be owned by you.

I dislike DRM as much as the next Slashdotter, but this is actually laxer than the current DRM employed on digital content distribution - where you're locked into the device you download it to and the possibility to popping over to a friends house to watch something is minimal.

(side note: of course this will fail)

You swallowed the spin... (4, Insightful)

itsdapead (734413) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654480)

The summary is slightly misleading. Yes, it's DRM but it's an effort by the industry to make it so that content purchased in one way (eg. on your PS3) will work on a multitude of other devices which may or may not be owned by you.

If I want to take a movie to a friend's house (see first line of TFA) and play it, all I have to do is stick the .mp4 (or whatever) file on a USB stick and plug it in their player. The only thing that would stop me doing this is DRM.

...so its a new form of DRM which solves a problem that only exists because of DRM.

Now, I'm happy to either (a) pay a small fee to a streaming video-on-demand service to view a film once, (b) pay a reasonable subscription for access to a large media library or (c) pay a significantly larger price to download an unprotected copy in a standard format which I can watch time and again and "treat like a DVD".

This however, seems to combine the worst features of (a),(b) and (c).

From the article: (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654240)

It might sound technical, but it could be crucial to persuading consumers to buy all the splashy new Internet-connected gear that tech companies will demonstrate at C.E.S., like HDTVs and set-top boxes that can download TV shows and films.

I have a set-top box which can download TV and films. It's a Windows PC with a BitTorrent client. No doubt there are other solutions, but mine works without DRM.

Re:From the article: (1)

geekmux (1040042) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654716)

It might sound technical, but it could be crucial to persuading consumers to buy all the splashy new Internet-connected gear that tech companies will demonstrate at C.E.S., like HDTVs and set-top boxes that can download TV shows and films.

I have a set-top box which can download TV and films. It's a Windows PC with a BitTorrent client. No doubt there are other solutions, but mine works without DRM.

Yes, but the real issue with your solution is you are able to download TV and films sans payment...to just about anyone...ever. Obviously corporations have a bit of an issue staring at a goose egg for this type of revenue, regardless of how much they charge you for the hardware.

DECE? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30654242)

I prefer 09F9

I have a better solution that still uses... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30654296)

... the same system! .encryptionKeys {display:none}

They must have been using visibility:hidden which is less secure because you can still see that it is there, you just can't see the content very clearly.
Those silly, silly people. That's what happens when you don't stay up-to-date.

I find (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30654326)

that the performance hit of all their content scrambling and encryption makes watching media from a conventional optical disc unpractical. I'm fine leaving it scrambled of course, so long as I can put the entire disc image on my 1TB external hard drive. I have all kinds of 4.5 and 9 GB .iso files that are exactly that.

I find their pleas on 'ethics' amusing. What ethical theory are they trying to use? Hedonistic consequentialism? We'd almost all be better off if they were bankrupt so they'd leave us alone, so plotting their downfall is the right thing to do. They've declared war on me, I have no problem declaring war on them. And that's just the beginning. As software like Blender, GIMP, Inkscape, and Pitivi catches up to and surpasses its proprietary competition, the barrier for entry into digital content production will be nearly eliminated. Some day CC-licensed video will be as easy to find as audio via sites like Jamendo.com today, or software, like the stuff in the Ubuntu Software Center. The industry, by inspiring such a deep hatred in such a broad swath of the worldwide population, is digging themselves a very deep hole. My main concern is that we'll bail them out when they fall in, I'd be pissed. Think of it, working all these years to destroy the monster and then it gets my tax money? No way.

While they're lobotomizing their own digital content, the Free Culture will be replacing it, and there is simply no way to stop us.

I've already bypassed the Encryption (1)

stms (1132653) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654338)

As I have one of these [pinnaclesys.com] .

Backwards (1)

DJGrahamJ (589019) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654352)

This is so backwards:

Hollywood and its high-tech partners are deeply concerned that their customers will rebel against some of the limitations taking shape as video moves away from physical discs.
Consumers, the industry believes, could balk at buying digital movies and TV shows until they can bring their collections with them wherever they go — by and large the same freedom people have with DVDs.

The main limitation that's taking shape is Big Content's want for absolute control over media files. What we're balking at is the idea of locked down files that only play on certain network-connected systems with licensed hardware or software. The solution is to sell DRM-free files of content we actually want.

Music albums, TV networks and to some extent movies are all designed around selling content we want mixed with crap we don't want. Well guess what? The jig us up.

Comapnies shutting down is always a risk (1)

Stregano (1285764) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654422)

With movies, I would not buy a digital copy. A company shuts down or turns off its servers, and all of that stuff you bought goes away, which would not be fun.

Broad alliance solving problem of being too useful (2, Interesting)

noidentity (188756) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654432)

Consumers, the industry believes, could balk at buying digital movies and TV shows until they can bring their collections with them wherever they go -- by and large the same freedom people have with DVDs.

In the last year and a half, a broad alliance of high-tech companies and Hollywood studios has been trying to address this problem through an organization called the Digital Entertainment Content Ecosystem, or DECE. Five of the six major Hollywood studios (Warner Brothers, NBC Universal, Sony, Paramount and Fox, but not Walt Disney) are involved, with Microsoft, Cisco Systems, Comcast, Intel and Best Buy.

Remember, these difficulties are from them wanting information to behave like limited physical objects. Every step they have to negate information's greatest advantages over physical objects, in order to maintain artificial scarcity. Those who haven't shackled themselves would never need a "broad alliance of high-tech companies and Hollywood studios" to address the problem, since it wouldn't even exist. We already have video encoding standards, and storage medium standards, so we can move video among all our devices. The only problem is that it's too easy. It's insane that their problem is that something is too useful, and they consider crippling the technology to be creating value.

Capital punishment of a medium (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30654450)

So, they had decided to finally DECEmate DVD format?

No (4, Informative)

spikesahead (111032) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654488)

I want high quality, unencrypted, unencumbered media.

You are attempting to compete against piracy, which can already provide me with the above, by offering me an inferior product at the cost of replacing my existing, fully functional hardware.

I did not purchase music online until Amazon MP3 came to town. Amazon MP3 actually fills my exact requirements, high quality, unencrypted, unencumbered media, and as such I have stopped pirating audio entirely and have instead been purchasing music again. It's worth the money to get a high quality instance of what I actually want, and includes an unexpected high value bonus; the album art in every file!

Amazon MP3 offers a superior product to that produced by piracy. Do the same for video and I will begin spending money on movies again, until that time I will continue to get what I want from the people willing to offer it; pirates.

Geographic restrictions (2, Interesting)

16384 (21672) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654712)

There's one thing that goes against the internet philosophy: Geographic restrictions. I can't buy amazon .mp3s, can't watch Hulu, etc. It's getting more and more annoying.

The Listener's License (2, Interesting)

RevWaldo (1186281) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654632)

From Sean Kennedy's Tales From The Afternow ( http://rantmedia.ca/afternow/ [rantmedia.ca] )
(from transcript http://thinkforyourself.vaillife.net/assets/afternow/01tota.streamjack.doc [vaillife.net] ) -

It was a few years later when the REAL crackdown came. The Listener’s License. What a fantastic concept. I can’t believe it. See it happened like this. There was this - There is all this piracy, see everybody was - Piracy was - Uh, Piracy is now what they now consider a theft. See in order to combat piracy which was getting really rampant, all this information was flowing around nobody really liked that so they wanted it gone. And they wanted to get rid of piracy. But they couldn’t stop it.

The Internet was growing everyday. No one could stem the flow so they created the Listener’s License. Started real easy. See music, legitimate music to purchase, was, you know, say 20 bucks. And then what they did was, if you signed up to get this card, you know like a loyalty program card of the day. You’d get 75% percent off. So a 20 dollar CD became a 5 dollar CD. And you could buy it legitimately. For 20 bucks you would walk out of there with 4 CD’s. Amazing.

Of course people were signing up for it in droves, I mean why wouldn’t ya? You could go buy a pirate CD for 6 bucks or you could buy the reall thing for 5. Consumers are such mercenaries. So they signed up en masse.

2 years went by, 2 years. Then it became mandatory. See if you didn’t have your listener’s license, if you couldn’t present your card, well you weren’t able to buy music. Part of the licensing agreement came when you got the card. And all of sudden people were out in the cold.

But it wasn’t just the music you know. The Listener’s License was created by the conglomerates. They all got together. If you wanted to see a movie, hey if you had your listener’s License you could get in for 2 dollars. (chuckle) 2 bucks. Oh you don’t have a Listener’s License, well you can’t get in. See they couldn’t control the piracy so they stopped it at its source.

If ever you were found to be a pirate or if your computer was ever found to have MP3’s that weren’t appropriate on it you were eliminated, your listener’s License was revoked and you were out of the loop. It's all private enterprise, you don’t have a right to music, you never had a right to it. It's all private.

No more movies no more shows. Can’t even buy art. Cause you can scan it. What if you scanned that picture? So, regulation of course is always the first step to total domination. But we didn’t see that either. We weren’t ready for the horror.

At that time the Listener’s License had huge power. Not the power it has today, I mean now. If you do not have a valid Listener’s License. I mean - well in our time you can’t do anything, I mean, you’re a pirate. If you can’t present, that is part of your paperwork. It’s part of your identification. See the listener’s License, after they came out with that. That was a huge step one.

But everyone was so focused on the Listener’s License they didn’t see where the REAL power play was made. See everyone was so whipped up, and the media again, you know the corporately controlled media. Got everyone focusing on the benefits and the drawbacks, a big debate over the listener’s license. But then what they didn’t see was, was the regulations that went into play on the recording equipment. See that was the one that really came back. They started putting these standards on microphones and any kind of recording media. You wanted to record, well you gotta adhere to this standard. Because this is the future. Got to make sure the quality is there.

Chips were put into place. All recording media became regulated. No listener’s license, well at the very least you can’t buy recorded media. (chuckles) Can’t make your own music if you don’t have the listener’s license.

And this grew to where it’s at today, where there is no more cameras, and microphones are gone. All the kit I’m using here, well this would get me recycled for sure. So just by listening unfortunately you’re breaking the law. But if you are still listening then you probably have it in your head that listening to people talk probably isn’t bad despite what the prompters say. Speech should be free. People should be able to talk.

There used to be a time people could sing openly without being worried about licensing. There used to be a time when you’d be able to a read a book or tell a story. Of course the books are gone. And you can still lose your license by telling stories. Its dangerous business being creative.

There were a few who knew, the dangers that’d come from that listener’s license, there were a few who caught on....

Finally the full fledged dream of the World Licensing Organization was created. And they set the standards for all things. Once they were established, all the mega-corps, what was left of the United Nations. They couldn’t stop them. So they began to copyright everything. Behind closed doors, nobody had a say. Queen’s English is copy written. That is why I try not to keep my street slang down to a bare minimum. It just not language though it is every word every image, program, software, everything’s owned.

That was when they stopped teaching us how to read. Of course if you were employed, part of a company’s licensing scheme, oh yeah, you learned how to read.

But for us fringers out here. It’s no hope for you. Every idea is owned They had a whole new line of buzzwords. Unlicensed knowledge is pornography. Unregulated media is propaganda. Sharing is theft. All those catchy little slogans.

If it wasn’t for the WLO maybe we’d a chance, maybe the government could’ve stood up to them but - when the WLO went in that was - I think that was really the end, that was the last of it. That was the final nail.

The government is based on a legal system. Businesses used that legal system to take out the government. Oh sure we still have our government now, you know they are nothing more than just a human resource’s tool. Keep the fringers out.

All-hardware encryption? (1)

JSBiff (87824) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654642)

Ok, I'll bite. What the heck is all-hardware encryption? Granted, I'm sure it's possible to implement decryption algorithms in silicon, instead of as software, but what's to prevent some enterprising programmer from creating a *software* implementation of the decryption algo? How can you *force* encryption/decryption to be all-hardware?

The Hangover (3, Insightful)

2obvious4u (871996) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654780)

So I rented "The Hangover" last night. There is a nice new nasty FBI warning when you load the disk and it won't let you skip the previews or go to the main menu. It was another nail in the coffin for me an purchasing or renting movies. I'm about one more bad experience away from becoming a full blown pirate. What made DVD's great when they first came out was the ability to skip all the crap and to not have to rewind, this forcing you to watch PSA's before the movie is utter crap. (Yes there is a stop smoking PSA you can't skip too...)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...