Beta

×

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!

IBM CPRM Plan Replaced with Similar Copy-Prevention Plan

michael posted more than 13 years ago | from the old-wine-in-new-bottles dept.

IBM 174

Several people submitted the news that IBM withdrew its CPRM plan yesterday - some of them with blurbs like "We Won! Yay!". But only a few people got the additional information that it was simply replaced with another extremely similar copy-prevention scheme, this one from Phoenix Technologies, well known for their widely used BIOS's. Even though the committee responsible for this has been deluged with email in opposition, the CPRM group (led by Paul Anderson and Jeffrey Lotspiech of IBM) continues to press forward, distributing propagandistic lies about how the system will protect [sic] your fair-use right to access and use digital content. Update: 02/24 7:20 PM EST by michael : The Register has even more information from Andre Hedrick.

cancel ×

174 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

What's the problem? (1)

Shane (3950) | more than 13 years ago | (#407060)

I don't see the problem here. Commerical software is restricted and it is against the law (in most countries) to use software that you have not paid for. This is another example of how commerical software is developed to restrict not to benefit the users. If you want freedom over the software you use, stop using software that restricts your freedoms. Fighting this battle on their terms is a lost cause, the only practical way to fight this is by replacing restricted software with Free (community owned) software.

If you want to replace everything from operating systems to games with Free/Open Software then I suggest we start looking into ways that would alow the community to fund developers to write these programs full time.

Developers will only be able to devote themselve's full time if they can afford to do so. Since free software isn't about price, and all about freedom why is it that the users of Free Software do not provide the developers with the resources required to better serve us?

Re:What's the big fuss? (1)

RelliK (4466) | more than 13 years ago | (#407061)

I think that everyone would agree that the content creator should have the last word over how his content should be used.

Where the hell did you get that idea? There is no legal basis for this. And who is "everyone"?
___

Excellent comments in Register article (1)

HEbGb (6544) | more than 13 years ago | (#407067)

Very nice commentary on other media sources here: [theregister.co.uk]

Like so many Register stories, CPRM bypassed the trade press almost entirely en-route to the national and international media, where it made the front page of the San Jose Mercury, and was covered by many national inkies including The Times and The Independent. But look in vain for coverage on Wired, or the CMP networks, and apart from one tragic effort - which failed to mention the boycott - it went ignored by the CNet/ZDNet conglomerate too. That explains the title of our FAQ on the topic.

Well, believe it or not, ZDNet still refuses to tell you anything about CPRM. Today ZDNet reporter Rob Lemos (hi, Rob) turned in a sterling story on the subject, but it was published only on CNet's site, and not by ZDNet News. Keeping the news away from your readers is quite a challenge for news editors, and must merit some lovely glass Anti-Journalism gong all of its own.

Ye gads, how long can they keep it up?

Re:Bad. but not TOO bad. (1)

Syberghost (10557) | more than 13 years ago | (#407069)

WTF are you talking about? I'm an atheist, you moron.

-

Re:Bad. but not TOO bad. (1)

faster (21765) | more than 13 years ago | (#407070)

> How big of a deal is this really going to be?

This is a troll, right?

> I will be the first one to sign up for this
> if it will lower the retail cost of games and apps

OK, let's pretend that you're running a big for-profit software company. You find a way to cut costs (actually, someone else forces changes in the tools that people use to eat into your margins a tiny bit; does anyone have real numbers on what software theft costs in the US?). Do you pass that long to your customers? Do you give all the "hard-working developers" raises? If you said "hell no!", you pass CEO 101.

So tell me again why this isn't such a bad idea?

Re:It's just sad (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 13 years ago | (#407071)

canadian socialism? how many people has that killed, and how does that compare with the people that capitalism has killed? (remember to count everyone we killed in iraq against capitalism).

not the same as CPRM (1)

novarese (24280) | more than 13 years ago | (#407072)

It's not the same as CPRM, in fact, it could be much better for consumers.

See the Register article [theregister.co.uk] on the same topic.

It gets a modest thumbs up from ATA guru Andre Hedrick:

Although the proposal - which has not yet been published outside the open meeting - does not specifically prevent any command sets such as CPRM from applying to fixed hard drives at a later date, Hedrick says the important point is that the owner of the drive could disable the features. And furthermore, it gives users of operating systems that let such features through block them. However, he plans to reserve his final judgement until review of the published document.

Re:It's just sad (1)

mwa (26272) | more than 13 years ago | (#407073)

No, it's copy prevention. Copyright enforcement means it would only step in if I were to attempt a copyright violation. I have numerous good reasons to make copies, all valid under the "Fair use" doctrine. These are attempts to prevent me from making legal copies. If you want to call it enforcement, then you could also call frying someone in the electric chair because they might kill someone "enforcement" .

Re:It's just sad (1)

1010011010 (53039) | more than 13 years ago | (#407077)

OH MY GOD! [slashdot.org]

- - - - -

Re:Bad. but not TOO bad. (1)

norton_I (64015) | more than 13 years ago | (#407078)

Every computer user in the world has copyrighted data on their comptuer. It may be legal (free software, or an owned copy of windows), illegal (MP3s from Napster or pirated version of windows), but copyrighted none the less. Thus copy protection is an issue for all users.

Second, this brings up a number of fair use concerns. I like to think that I am entitled to rip and mp3ify CDs I own, store them on my hard drive, and upload some subset of them onto my portable MP3 player. The RIAA would like me to pay for each copy I have, and to pay each time I upload a song onto my MP3 player. A sucessful copy protection scheme would give them a means to enforce this.

This is the important part: Even though my actions are perfectly legal, the DMCA would make it illegal for me to bypass the encryption to allow me to do so.

Another important concern I have over this kind of software is that it requires a "trusted" copy command that contains the keys necessary to decrypt the content and doesn't allow the data to be subverted to a non-protected representation. This means, any software that can access "protected" materials needs to have direct hardware access, since it must bypass the OS (or be part of it). This effectively means that you have to have tools like cp and media player execute in kernel space. Now who thinks this is a good idea?

Re:It's just sad (1)

norton_I (64015) | more than 13 years ago | (#407079)

The RIAA and others eventually hope to abandon copyright entirely, since it was created by a bunch of bleeding heart hippies who think that consumers still have rights. In the future, if they get their way, acceptable use will be governed not by laws, controlled by unreliable congressmen (who have this nasty tendancy of not staying bribed), but by technology that allows them complete control over uses of their so-called property.

Since subverting content protection schemes, even for completely legal purposes is now illegal, as soon as they manage to widely deploy these technologies, it will be illegal to make even fair use of copyrighted material.

We have already seen it with DeCSS and region coded DVDs, it is only a matter of time before the music industry catches up.

Write your elected representatives! encourage them to support consumer freedom and choice! They probably won't listen, but you can say you tried.
Who knows, it might raise their bribe threshold to the point it is unprofitable for the RIAA :)

Re:A Modest Proposal - great idea! (1)

haggar (72771) | more than 13 years ago | (#407082)

I totally agree, but here's why it could fail: the same reason Linux is not 100% POSIX compliant. The average Linux-usin, slashdot-reading geek is not interested in open systems, probably because he/she doesn't really understand the implications of them. Open source gets a huge thumbs up, but what really matters, open systems, doesn't.

I agree that what you are proposing is easier to grasp, but I am afraid that there will still be the old discussion "opensource or bust", instead of focusing on the real issues.

Re:Any details on the Phoenix plan? (1)

Anomynous Coward (80091) | more than 13 years ago | (#407083)

It seems it could involve io busses, not necessarily BIOS code.

see posting AVIP - Phoenix's CPRM in IO busses??

.vortex

AVIP - Phoenix's CPRM in IO busses ?? (1)

Anomynous Coward (80091) | more than 13 years ago | (#407084)


An 18 month old Phoenix press release [phoenix.com]

talks about 'Audio Visual Intellectual Property technology'

AVIP [techweb.com] looks dusty and looks as though would require wide industry support from hardware manufacturers and it doesn't yet have that...

While trawling through Phoenix's site, do be sure to check out the link to inSilicon %^/

.vortex

Re:C-64 copy protection nostalgia (slightly OT) (1)

Ryu2 (89645) | more than 13 years ago | (#407085)

This idea lives on today in the Playstation and Playstation 2. That's why you can't play copied games without a modchip.

Re:A Modest Proposal (1)

mcrandello (90837) | more than 13 years ago | (#407086)

Real simple. Create tests based on real-world fair use situations. Simply report whether the device allowed you to copy the information, or whether it did not. Since you are not employing any technological means to defeat the copy-protection, you are not running afoul of any laws, right(IANAL)?

Have a simple pass/fail chart with big shiny red and green check marks, so the customers will instantly recognize which products employ content-control measures, and base their purchases accordingly.

This could be a good thing (1)

Winged Cat (101773) | more than 13 years ago | (#407091)

They keep spending resources on unworkable copy protection. Meanwhile, the public is becoming more and more used to free software (which, for a number of these applications, is the only one deployed - the corporate version's release having been delayed when the oh-so-important copy protection could not be verified as working). This means less acceptance of the protected model over time.

It's the old "first to market" strategy, only in our favor.

so close... (1)

rograndom (112079) | more than 13 years ago | (#407094)

Why do I get the feeling that IBM thinks that people didn't object to the *idea* of hardware based copy protection, but this implementation of it?

Re:Bad. but not TOO bad. (1)

pjl5602 (150416) | more than 13 years ago | (#407099)

I will be the first one to sign up for this if it will lower the retail cost of games and apps, even if it means giving up a bit of my privacy. After all, I've got nothing to hide!

Please tell me that you just forgot to put the smiley on the end of your statement.

Just stop and think about it for a second from a historical perspective.&nbsp Audio CDs when they were released were not copyable to recordable CDs for years.&nbsp Were they cheaper than tapes even though manufacturing costs were way less?&nbsp No.&nbsp DVD are still not able to be cheaply copied by joe-blow.&nbsp Are they cheaper than VHS tapes even though they cost way less to manufacture?&nbsp No.&nbsp Copy protection will *NOT* lower prices.&nbsp Why?&nbsp Because copying by joe-blow by and large does *NOT* hurt sales.&nbsp I guarantee that most people that copy stuff would definitely not pay for it in the first place.&nbsp So all copy protection does is makes things a pain in the ass for the law abiding citizen.

Re:It's just sad (1)

DeeKayWon (155842) | more than 13 years ago | (#407101)

Either that or copy control.

Re:It's just sad (1)

chasec (157393) | more than 13 years ago | (#407102)

There are about hundred million dead people from Stalin, Mao, and other various Communist goons' experiments in non-capitalism.

You confuse communism here with totalitarianism, the real reason these people can do what they do. It's like saying that because of capitalism, I have the right to free speech. One is an economic system; the other is a governmental system. It's entirely possible to have a socialist democracy (such as many European countries).

Silly. (1)

Perianwyr Stormcrow (157913) | more than 13 years ago | (#407103)

"On Thursday, the committee gave the go-ahead for Phoenix to further develop its outlined plan for a way of accessing restricted parts of removable media, in which ID numbers, encryption keys, or other codes could be recorded. The new method would be used for copy protection, but could also serve other purposes, such as enhancing security on removable media such as flash memory cards."

Sounds like more Commodore 64-style copy protection.

"Yes, we will hide some crap in a weird area of the disk."

But, to be verified, it must be decoded!

"Oh, so we will make the hardware do it."

Oh, so we crack this like we crack any other program- remove the checking, and the problem is solved.

Why is so much money being spent on this, when it could easily be spent on more useful things that aren't being actively attacked?



--Perianwyr Stormcrow

Uhh.. no copyrighted data??? (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 13 years ago | (#407104)

The reason being, that most users aren't using their hard drives to store illegal or copyrighted data.
Uh yeah... you don't have copyrighted data? Actually you're likely to have almost nothing *but* copyrighted data, though you might actually own the rights to some of it yourself. These data include probably every software program you ow... uh have a licence for, any music, video or othervise recorded things (even if you own the cds and bought the tape and whatever, they're still copyrighted). I can't speak for you but you sure don't know the average user...

Kjella

They've already lost. (1)

1/137 (179946) | more than 13 years ago | (#407106)

The copy prevention zealots are fighting a losing battle. People are running around copying mp3s because they intuitively understand that artificially limiting an unlimited resource for the purpose of recompense is absurd. Imagine you could print out a steak dinner dinner or new sports car at home. How long would people stand to go hungry or carless in large numbers, just because its the only way we can think of to ensure that the inventors of cars and steaks are repayed?

Just think how much more aware people are becoming! I had no idea about "Fair Use" until the Napster issue took off. I thought everytime you made a mix for a friend you were breaking a law! Now I am aware of a new right that I will vigorously defend.

Eights Links (1)

logiceight (187269) | more than 13 years ago | (#407107)

What the hell? You have 8 links in this article.

This some attempt to getting all of them slashdoted?

Good Work!

ftp server for pdf file out (1)

eudas (192703) | more than 13 years ago | (#407108)

as of 20010223@1835CST, the ftp server that hosts the link for 'propagandistic lies' seems to be disabled, or the account name/pw changed. does anybody have a mirror of the pdf file? i'd be interested in reading it.

eudas

Re:A Modest Proposal (1)

eudas (192703) | more than 13 years ago | (#407109)

unless compliance with such an organization was government-mandated, nobody would submit their products and product specs to it for review. in that case, the review boards would have to "hack" the things in order to find out if they contained content control mechanisms, which not only would be illegal according to the dmca if such mechanisms WERE included, but would also fail to provide assurance beyond a reasonable doubt whether or not said mechanisms were actually present. in other words, without companies willingly submitting specs and items in a compliant fashion, the value of the organization's assurance would be questionable. this would thereby weaken the value of their 'sigil', and essentially invalidate their raison d'être.

eudas

huh? (1)

7-Vodka (195504) | more than 13 years ago | (#407110)

what's supposed to be there? The login wasn't allowed. mirror?

"just connect this to..."
BZZT.

Bad. VERY bad. (1)

mkcmkc (197982) | more than 13 years ago | (#407111)

Is this a troll? This "the innocent have nothing to fear" argument is thoroughly invalidated by history.

Why do the media corporations even have a seat at the table here? They don't buy disks--we consumers do.

Vote with your wallet.

--Mike

We need these Hard Drives to enforce GPL (1)

akc (207721) | more than 13 years ago | (#407112)

If copy protection devices are going to come, the open source movement MUST fight for the mechanisms to allow someone to copy UNLOCK their data (by that I mean that once such an UNLOCK is applied to data a subsequent copy of that data connot be copy locked).

We need to fight back with proposals of our own!

Bad. but not TOO bad. (1)

atrowe (209484) | more than 13 years ago | (#407114)

Like most Slashdot readers, I'd be inclined to avoid copy protection if a non-protected alternative is readily available, but it's starting to look like copy protected electronics are going to become increasingly present in the coming years. This poses an interesting question: How big of a deal is this really going to be?

I, for one, would like to think that owning a copy protected hard drive would not present a major difference from current hard drive technology for most users. The reason being, that most users aren't using their hard drives to store illegal or copyrighted data. As long as you are a responsible, law abiding citizen, there shouldn't be much of a problem with this proposal. Many readers (myself included) are a bit wary of using devices that feature copy protection, but if you think about it,

a) It probably wouldn't affect most users.

and b) If you are affected/restricted by owning a copy protected drive, you're most likely doing something you aren't supposed to.

As long as a copy protection scheme is fair to all parties, including the end user, and proper review and analysis is conducted prior to the system's implementation, copy protection will actually be beneficial to most users. Think about this for a moment: Hardware based copy-protection prevents unauthorized/illegal duplication of software. The end result of this crackdown on piracy would be lower costs for those of us who obtain our software through legitimate channels. I will be the first one to sign up for this if it will lower the retail cost of games and apps, even if it means giving up a bit of my privacy. After all, I've got nothing to hide!

Re:Bad. but not TOO bad. (1)

DreamingReal (216288) | more than 13 years ago | (#407116)

The end result of this crackdown on piracy would be lower costs for those of us who obtain our software through legitimate channels.

Hmmm. Let's think about this from an executive's perspective for a moment:

  1. Through our support for hardware/software that "protects" our IP (at the expense of consumer rights) we are projected to increase profits by 25% at the end of this quarter. Should we
  2. Pass on the savings to our customers and reduce our net margin?
  3. Keep prices steady and give the Board of Directors a reason to increase our salary for boosting profits?

If you honestly think you'll see any savings, then I have a bridge I'd like to sell you...


-------

What's the big fuss? (1)

kosipov (218202) | more than 13 years ago | (#407117)

I know that this will get moderated to flaimbait as soon as it will get posted but I don't think that this is a big deal.

I think that everyone would agree that the content creator should have the last word over how his content should be used. The copy protection scheme in question gives an option to the creator of not copy protecting the content. The advocates of Napster and free content in general claim that freedom of copying the content is ultimately beneficial to the content creators in digital world. Assuming that this idea is true, they have nothing to fear - authors will simply choose not to copy protect their work and distribute it freely. Which implies that people won't use copy-protection.

Re:What's the big fuss? (1)

kosipov (218202) | more than 13 years ago | (#407118)

There is no legal basis for this.

No legal basis? So are you implying that I simply should be able to take your ideas and say that they are mine? Reprint your books and publications and put my name on them? That is the basis of my arguments - the content creator should be able to choose what happens to his/her work.

Re:Bad. but not TOO bad. (1)

lupa (218669) | more than 13 years ago | (#407121)

"even if it means giving up a bit of my privacy."

wow, and here privacy is one of them there constitutionally protected rights here in the USA, and copyright is not. are you outside of the US, or just don't care about what is and isn't truly "protected?"

Re:It's just sad (1)

lupa (218669) | more than 13 years ago | (#407122)

Come on, stop and think: *intellectual property*? What kind of capitalistic, corporate oxymoron is that?

that oxymoron means that what i create is mine, and no one else can make a profit off of it without giving me credit. my stories, my art, my articles, my music - they all need to exist with my name attached to them.

that's really all it means. corporations simply abuse it, and have their workers sign away their rights to it because they're using corporate facilities to have their brainstorms.

Re:copy protection (1)

Blymie (231220) | more than 13 years ago | (#407126)

What moron moderated this up? Its not interesting, its just another form of trolling.

Re:To (1)

Foss (248146) | more than 13 years ago | (#407131)

bababooey indeed. Is it just me, or is the only good thing IBM have ever done is release purely black cases, monitors, keyboards and mice? (using an IBM monitor and keyboard. mmm. black.. shiny)

Re:Man, what a nightmare (1)

Foss (248146) | more than 13 years ago | (#407132)

IBM need to get their pooholes cleaned out before they start photocopying them.

Re:Bad. but not TOO bad. (1)

epicurus (252619) | more than 13 years ago | (#407133)

Copy protection doesn't always effect those doing wrong with hardware/software/etc. For instance, my brother has a older tv with a vcr connecting his dvd player up to it (doesn't have rca jacks in the tv, it's the only way he can connect the dvd to the tv). Anyhow, the dvd players form of copy protection is to make the picture look like crap (messes w/ the colors and light constantly) if it's connected to a vcr -- keeping people from making (good) copies...but for my brother, it's not keeping him from doing what he shouldn't be allowed to do, it's keeping him from being able to use hardware that he purchased for its main purpose -- watching movies w/ good quality picture and sound.

will they ever learn... (1)

epicurus (252619) | more than 13 years ago | (#407134)

When will these companies ever learn that no matter what technology they come up with to copy protect their stuff, people are always going to find a way around it...it might make it a little harder to copy, but people will find a way to do it. They're just throwing money into a pit on this one.

Re:It's just sad (1)

tewwetruggur (253319) | more than 13 years ago | (#407135)

thank you!

I think you just wrote out what I was feeling - on the nose.

This whole control business is indeed getting out of hand. It definitely has to do with a trend of leaning away from democracy (which the US technically is not to begin with - we're close) and leaning towrds oligarchy - with the control being held by corporations. Perhaps I'm being a bit gloomy with that statement, and maybea bit paranoid, but I don't think I'm too far off.

I just wish there was a more effective way of trying to promote level-headed thinking, thinking about the "big-picture", rather than freaking out over control/protection issues. These companies need to try to find out why they think there's a need for this style of copy-protection - and fix that problem instead of adding in the protection. Why do people pirate software? Why do people download songs from Napster? Why do friends swap copies of games every now and then? Is it because we are "evil people, bent on subverting the rights of a company to make a profit"? I don't think so.

I'll leave this post at this. Just trying to feel out how others feel about this.

blanket theory... (1)

tewwetruggur (253319) | more than 13 years ago | (#407136)

perhps if we all throw blankets over our heads, this won't bother us, and will instead go away.

yeah, I didn't think so either, but I can dream, can't I?

When will the learn (1)

cavemanf16 (303184) | more than 13 years ago | (#407138)

I'm tired of hearing about it! When will they learn that this is not about the consumers!? It's about their profits. That's why I'm beginning to love Linux more and more each day. This copy protection scheme is just another way for the RIAA and all the other profit jerks out there to impede on genuine creativity. It's definitely not going to generate customer loyalty. Quit trying to control what I can and cannot do with my own stuff that I've purchased and just make a better damn product that does more, rather than restricts more!

AntiCopy Implants (1)

OpenSezMe (311686) | more than 13 years ago | (#407139)

I think the DMCA should be amended to require that a manufacturere MUST prominently disclose ANY IP Content Controls contained within his product so I, as an informed consumer, can avoid buying it.

are you smoking somthing? (1)

jpetzold (319053) | more than 13 years ago | (#407141)

dude, I don't care if the creators of a particular work want to protect there work or not, keeping people from copying it is there problem not the problem of Hard drive manufacturers.

by blocking the media or worse the MOBO data buses they are restricting my rights, I should have the right to break the law in protest of that said law. when I do, it is then my responsability to suffer any ramifications.

my decision not theirs.

open computer systems (1)

jpetzold (319053) | more than 13 years ago | (#407142)

hey mabye this will lead open source companies to make more hardware!!!

Re:What's the big fuss? (1)

jpetzold (319053) | more than 13 years ago | (#407143)

but not by controling the media or buses that it is transmited along. that is what has no legal basis

Re:not the same as CPRM (1)

jpetzold (319053) | more than 13 years ago | (#407144)

tell me if I am wrong but the article seemed to suggest that a copy was possable but one could not copy from the removable media that the first copy was made. i.e. third generation copies would not be possable.

why is it..... (1)

jpetzold (319053) | more than 13 years ago | (#407145)

that vaporware only seems to be somthing that we think is realy cool but companies always come through with the tech that we hate.

Re:People are stupid, but not that stupid (1)

jpetzold (319053) | more than 13 years ago | (#407146)

do you realy want to depened on the average computer user?

do you know who that is?

it is the millions who use AOL and think they are realy on the internet. then when you tell them that they aren't, they look at you like you are on crack.

yep real dependable.

make sure..... (1)

jpetzold (319053) | more than 13 years ago | (#407147)

that you tell them so they know why there profits decresed .000000001% from the lack of slashdoters buying there products :)

WTF...you have misread somthing (1)

jpetzold (319053) | more than 13 years ago | (#407148)

umm since when is a HARDWARE access control an implementation of SOFTWARE

Re:Any details on the Phoenix plan? (1)

jpetzold (319053) | more than 13 years ago | (#407150)

what!!!!they want to put it into my motherboard!!!! I say we go postal on all there asses.

this is like..... (1)

jpetzold (319053) | more than 13 years ago | (#407151)

Puting speed control devices into Cars so that it forces everyone to move at the posted speed limit.

IMHO it is mor dangerouse to do this because somone will learn how to diable it and many people will get hurt when he flies through traffic

CPRM is just bad

Re:this is like..... (1)

jpetzold (319053) | more than 13 years ago | (#407152)

and how does that chainge my reasoning?

Vote with your wallet. (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#407154)

If you don't want to buy a hard drive with copy protection technology, then don't. You can't tell me that every single vendor is going to put this stuff in -- there's a thing called supply and demand. Ever hear of the Apex 600A? Wonder why it sold so well?

If your new OS demands you have a hard drive with copy protection, don't use it, or wait a few minutes for those people who break copy checks on games to modify your OS. If your recording-industry-sponsored music sharing program demands a hard drive with copy protection, don't use it. I've yet to see a single industry music-sharing idea that holds a candle to napster and/or napigator, and we all know better than to believe WMA or SDMI are suddenly going to replace MP3.

Phoenix evil? (2)

abischof (255) | more than 13 years ago | (#407155)

Is it just me, or does Phoenix seem evil? These were the same people who planned to include bootup ads in their BIOSes [slashdot.org] . I'm not sure if that plan ever got off the ground, as I don't actually have a Phoenix BIOS ;).

Alex Bischoff
---

Any details on the Phoenix plan? (2)

profesor (1499) | more than 13 years ago | (#407156)

Does anyone have any details on what Phoenix's proposal is? The news article is lacking in content of this area.

Re:It's just sad (2)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | more than 13 years ago | (#407158)

First, I like capitalism, but it has problems. The reason that I like capitalism is that when it's working right, and people are acting competitively, there's a lot of efficiency that results.

The problem is that none of the capitalists involved are interested in efficiency or competition. They're motivated by a desire to destroy their competition and get maximum profits.

Consumers in a capitalist system want producers to have minimum profits and pass the savings back. But businesses keep trying to become monopolies, and when they do they pretty much inevitably try to exert that monopoly power to get more wealth, ruining the capitalist landscape.

If capitalism had a built in governor that could prevent the system from degrading like that, it'd be totally sweet. It's not though.

Is there a better system? Perhaps. Has it been discovered? Sadly, no. Find me something better than capitalism and I'd be all for it. I'm not stupid; I want things that are good, regardless of what the name is. If Communism or Socialism were better I'd be in favor of them. As it stands, we're doing best with Capitalism, but it's certainly not good enough to make me satisfied.

As for property, you're an idiot. Sorry, don't mean to be flame-happy, but it's true. As has been explained countless times on /. by myself and others, information cannot be owned. Non-physical items _may_ depending on their nature be owned, and in fact copyright is one of those, but that's not what the previous poster was talking about.

Unless you've got a better one, the working definition of property is that is is something that can meet three criteria. 1) that the owner be able to use and enjoy the thing 2) that they can let others use it at their sufferance 3) that they can dispose of it.

Information meets the first one just fine, we all know that.

But as for the second, when you let other people read your novel, you can't have it back. The manuscript, yes. The words, no. I can recite whole portions of books, movies, songs, etc. from memory. It's not unusual. But if I were to place them in a commercial venue, it would be infringement. Clearly my memories are sufficient to count, yet, my memories are clearly not ownable. Nor would it be desirable for them to be. People with photographic memories can and do read books once and never need to refer to a printed copy again. Yet if they read a book, it is not considered copyright infringement unless they copied it out again. Still, the information from the book was copied into their noggins and can't fulfill requirement #2.

The third is just the same. The author holds the original copy of a work in their head, generally. Then they copy it out to some medium. Copies in a medium may be protected, but not the intangible portion of the work - the exact words, the look of a painting, shape of a sculpture, etc.

Copyrights are entirely different. While no one can own the words in a book, they can own an artificial and limited right granted under certain conditions, for certain purposes by the government. This right permits them exclusively to make copies of the work without legal liability, for as long as the government permits it to exist. (which is regulated) The right is property - it can be used, extended or withdrawn to others, or given away or destroyed. But then again, it's not information.

Re:It's just sad (2)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | more than 13 years ago | (#407159)

No, there's a difference.

If words can be property, there's no purpose in copyright law. But they aren't property. They can't be property, unless you adopt a Newspeak approach to language in which words can be what you want them to mean. (heh - words are property, love is hate, war is peace)

Copyrights do serve a useful purpose, when used as instructed. We haven't been for the last few decades though, and it shows. If there were significant reform in the realm of copyright - a drastic shortening of terms, laws emphasizing the utilitarian model, stricter requirements for registration and extensions of works, better archiving - it could be an extraordinarily good thing. However the concept that words can be property is offensive and quite wrong. It's possible to be for a good copyright system and against IP in about the same way that it's possible to be for moderate use of alcohol but against drunkeness.

Unfortunately our government is listening more towards moneyed interests and foreign powers than it is to us, the jerkoffs.

Re:3 card Monty, etc (2)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | more than 13 years ago | (#407160)

Yeah, it's a little older than WW2.

It was part of a speech by James Philpot Curran of Ireland. In 1790.

The actual quote is: "The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime, and punishment of his guilt."

It gets paraphrased effectively enough though.

nice one michael (2)

mandolin (7248) | more than 13 years ago | (#407164)

while it's certainly nice to know this development, (and thank you for your post) I sure as hell wouldn't want to see my company email address associated with "propagandistic lies" on the front page of slashdot. It looks like you're trying to incite the flaming tard hordes to mailbomb the poor bastards who have to work on this crap.

I know damn well it's up to us, not you, to dig for both sides of the story ... but that's just cold man. Do you really think the tripe 99% of us are going to send to these guys is going to have a positive effect on their stance?

Re:It's just sad (2)

Pig Hogger (10379) | more than 13 years ago | (#407165)

Oooooh...capitalistic. How terrible. Please propose a system which works better than capitalism. There are about hundred million dead people from Stalin, Mao, and other various Communist goons' experiments in non-capitalism.
100 million people? That's about the death-count attributable to automobiles since they exist. Now, automobiles are quite a capitalistic product; so, try to imagine what the total death count of capitalism would be, when you ALSOinclude the victims of worplace disease and injury, ill-paid workers who can't afford doctors, and third-world workforce that work in sweatshops, all the result of your fine capitalist system.

--

Re:3 card Monty, etc (2)

Pig Hogger (10379) | more than 13 years ago | (#407166)


I hate to say it, but it seems to be truer than ever. It used to apply just to governments, etc.; now it applies to anyone with big bucks.
Not in the USA, where "anyone with big bucks" ==* "government".

* I did put the "==" to make believe that I program in C, but in reality, I'm a Delphi [borland.com] junkie...

--

Re:Bad. but not TOO bad. (2)

Syberghost (10557) | more than 13 years ago | (#407167)

After all, I've got nothing to hide!

When you give the auditors the power to do whatever they please, someday when they come to check you out you will find the sad truth:

The auditor never leaves until he finds SOMETHING. If you don't believe me, ask any auditor.

-

Re:It's just sad (2)

warlock (14079) | more than 13 years ago | (#407170)

I very much prefer Copyright Enforcement Measures. I think I've read it somewhere on the register, cheers to whoever it is that came up with this =P

Re:Bad. but not TOO bad. (2)

warlock (14079) | more than 13 years ago | (#407171)

Alternatively, watching Terry Gilliams' Brazil[1] half a dozen times or so could enlighten him.

It's getting easier and easier to face the fate of Mr. Tuttle^WButtle I'm afraid.

---
[1] Preferably the European version and definitely NOT the unbelievably stupid US one. I can't believe the nerves they had to happy-end that movie. Hollywood makes me sick.

OT: Brazil (2)

Tim C (15259) | more than 13 years ago | (#407173)

Hollywood put a happy ending on Brazil ?!

And I thought I'd heard it all...

Thank [insert focus of believe system here] I have a copy of the original.

Cheers,

Tim

Re:It's just sad (2)

TWR (16835) | more than 13 years ago | (#407175)

Come on, stop and think: *intellectual property*? What kind of capitalistic, corporate oxymoron is that? It's absurd and every day grows more so.

Oooooh...capitalistic. How terrible. Please propose a system which works better than capitalism. There are about hundred million dead people from Stalin, Mao, and other various Communist goons' experiments in non-capitalism.

I don't understand how you can believe that a physical item can be owned but a non-physical item can't. Of course, if you don't believe in private ownership of physical items, please post your address and leave your door open tonight. Someone will stop by and borrow your stuff.

-jon

Re:It's just sad (2)

TWR (16835) | more than 13 years ago | (#407176)

Last time I checked, Canada is capitalist. You can buy stuff and sell stuff, and you can set the prices for what you are buying and selling (more or less).

True socialism would be fully government organized redistribution of all goods and services. I don't think Canada does that, but it's been a few years since I've been there.

-jon

Re:It's just sad (2)

TWR (16835) | more than 13 years ago | (#407177)

No, I confuse nothing. Stalin wanted collective farms as part of doing away with private property. Tens of millions starved due to this experiment with communism. Similar things happened in China and other communist countries.

I'm not even talking about the totalitarian aspects of the USSR. But they do logically flow from a lot of Communist theology. How do you force people to give up their private property and give according to their skills and only take according to their means? A one-way trip to Siberia was the prime motivator, since the kindness of people's hearts wasn't working.

This is a bit tangential, but it's interesting to note how many of the peace and love and sharing gurus are serious control freaks. Draw your own parallels to the rise of totalitarianism in the USSR.

-jon

Re:C-64 copy protection nostalgia (slightly OT) (2)

jcorgan (30025) | more than 13 years ago | (#407181)

For those who don't know, C-64 copy protection often seemed to involve intentionally messing up part of the disk in a particular way, so that when you tried to read from that part, you'd get an error code. Then, they'd just have their program try to read the disk in that spot - if there wasn't an error, or it wasn't the RIGHT error, it was obviously a copy ("Obviously", copy programs wouldn't copy errors, would they? [More advanced bit-for-bit 'nibbler' copiers popped up in short order that DID, so you could once again make functional backups of your software...but I digress.]) The problem is, every time the floppy drive hit an error, it would reset itself by "banging" the head repeatedly against the stop, eventually knocking it out of alignment.

Ah, yes, when I was in high school, I worked afternoons and weekends in the local computer store as a bench technician on C64s. Our number one service request was realigning the r/w head on the 1541 drive because of this. At $65 a pop (in 1980's money) it was quite lucrative...

OpenBIOS (2)

jfunk (33224) | more than 13 years ago | (#407186)

Yet another reason to support OpenBIOS.

The major BIOS companies don't seem to like the idea of developing technology to benefit users. I wouldn't either, if I was stuck in that market. It gives them no competitive advantage.

Companies have tried and created better BIOS software but failed because the big guys can sell them cheaper, and will continue to do so by not caring about useability and such.

It seems the only way to actually improve it is to remove the financial burden on the developer's part.

This is an application open source is perfect for. Individual developers, chipmakers, and motherboard manufacturers can make a much better BIOS through collaboration and openness. SiS has already jumped on it, and the Los Alamos National Laboratory have created a temporary solution called LinuxBIOS, which is fulfilling a current need.

Costs go down for everybody at a point and a community will undercut companies like Phoenix. The end result is a better BIOS and an open system.

So far the only problem has been time and resources. Debugging a BIOS is more complicated than debugging a CLI app, and those of us already involved are quite busy with other things. We need to get over the first hump of a well planned initial design that satisfies all requirements yet allows for easy expansion.

Maybe someday...

Re:It's just sad (2)

jfunk (33224) | more than 13 years ago | (#407187)

Yep, we are capitalist, but not totally.

Neither is the US. The US has government owned companies that make money such as the US Postal Service.

Canada has more of these companies, we call them crown corporations. The belief is that some services are too important to allow them to go bankrupt. If they don't make enough money, the taxpayers pay the difference and we still get the service. If they make more money than they need, the money can go to other crown corporations such as health care and education.

That's how it's supposed to work at least. I am, for the most part, very happy with it. Essential services stay cheap for everyone and our health care and education remains fairly good, despite the low funding (I am comparing to the States here).

Over the last while the trend has been to spin some of them off, especially at the provincial level. Those ones sometimes end up having a hard time because of the potential outcries of increased prices but services and wages usually ramp up in the end, once it all settles. Larger companies are free to buy them as well.

I don't know of any totally capitalist societies out there, and I doubt it would actually work. Successful countries have done it with a careful mix.

Re:It's just sad (2)

1010011010 (53039) | more than 13 years ago | (#407190)

You probably shouldn't use the term "copy protection" -- use "copy prevention" instead, or perhaps "copyright protection".

"Copy protection" is a vague and dangerous term.

- - - - -

Re:huh? (2)

1010011010 (53039) | more than 13 years ago | (#407191)

what's supposed to be there? The login wasn't allowed. mirror?

It was that awful picture from goatse.cx ... apparently they've now denied access to that account and/or directory.

$ ncftpget -F ftp://t13:$tandard$@ftp.t13.org/incoming/hello.jpg
ncftpget: cannot open t13: username and/or password was not accepted for login

- - - - -

People are stupid, but not that stupid (2)

fhwang (90412) | more than 13 years ago | (#407194)

I don't really worry about this. I have enough faith in the average user that I would accept them to reject introduction of this new technology. Explain it to them in 30 seconds, even without our information-should-be-free bias, and they'll furrow their brow and start questioning it. "So I should pay more for a hard drive that offers me less control over the content? How again does that benefit me?"

So let the hard drive industry push ahead with their own plans. If they want another rerun of DivX, that's fine with me.

Re:What's the big fuss? (2)

crucini (98210) | more than 13 years ago | (#407195)

I think that everyone would agree that the content creator should have the last word over how his content should be used.

OK, kosipov, as the content creator of this post I hereby instruct you on how my content should be used: Print this post on 8.5x11 or A4 sized paper, crumple it up and swallow it. No water allowed.

Re:A Modest Proposal (2)

crucini (98210) | more than 13 years ago | (#407196)

I think it's a great idea. It would help bridge the cognitive gap between the complex world of content-control and the simple perceptions of consumers. However, I think it will be very hard to persuade the first few manufacturers.

Re:double talk (2)

crucini (98210) | more than 13 years ago | (#407197)

I was really offended by that quote. Why should there be any compromise at all? Why shouldn't the customer, who's paying for the equipment, get what he wants? How did these so-called content providers become worthy of consideration in a transaction which does not involve them?

Head for the woods! (2)

Coward Anonymous (110649) | more than 13 years ago | (#407199)

Time to return to the log cabin in Montana...

Re:It's just sad (2)

Dark Paladin (116525) | more than 13 years ago | (#407200)

You're right - copy prevention would have been a better term.

My bad.
John "Dark Paladin" Hummel

Re:It's just sad (2)

aardvarkjoe (156801) | more than 13 years ago | (#407205)

If you're so dead set against "intellectual property", then what does the perversion of copyright law have to do with anything?

We see this often -- people will use any arguments they can against their favorite enemy, whether or not those arguments can rationally go together. If you don't believe in intellectual property, then you should be against copyrights of any kind, limited or not.

Either side is arguable; I tend to agree with those who push for limited copyright protection, but can see that the "anti-intellectual-property" argument has some logic to it as well. But you destroy your credibility if you try to argue both.

Ironic (2)

pkaminsk (177973) | more than 13 years ago | (#407207)

and hiding it under a blanket like "the plan isn't JUST about copy protection, but also about enhancing security" is an obvious and sad marketing effort to try to find some credibile partner function for copy protection.

Kind of like "Napster helps independent bands" is a sad effort to try to find some credible partner function for illegal music copying?

3 card Monty, etc (2)

Alien54 (180860) | more than 13 years ago | (#407208)

3 card monty is the three card slight of hand rip off you see played on the sidewalks of new york and other big cities, designed to rip of tourists.

What these guys are doing is trying to pull the same kind of scam over our eyes.

There is an old quote, going back to WWII, and maybe even back to the revolution in various forms:

"The Price of Freedom is Eternal Vigalance"

I hate to say it, but it seems to be truer than ever. It used to apply just to governments, etc.; now it applies to anyone with big bucks.

Re:3 card Monty, etc (2)

SubtleNuance (184325) | more than 13 years ago | (#407209)

It used to apply just to governments, etc.; now it applies to anyone with big bucks.

they are the same person (people). Plutocracy. Class Warfare. Unfortunatley things will get worse before it gets better - then the revolution starts - it always does...

Re:A Modest Proposal (2)

sulli (195030) | more than 13 years ago | (#407210)

Great idea! Sign me up.

This is aimed at removable media, right? (2)

ahfoo (223186) | more than 13 years ago | (#407213)

After all, Phoenix is a BIOS software and the one post quoting the "ATA guru" said that this new Pheonix plan allows you to use certain undisclosed OS's, or tools thereof, to simply re-organize your boot sector more to your liking. That being the case, it doesn't look like it's really about hard drives.
DVD, on the other hand-- I think that's more where this is at with Toshiba and Matsushita. And this is where it has been for so long. The Japanese have totally blown that market. Price competitive DVD-R is so overdo it's gonna end up a stillborn product and this continuing game is just drawing it out further and further. There are alternatives to DVD for home content --stacks of cheap hard drives-- and the main forms of IP this ridiculous debate is targeting are movies and audio both of which are mostly used by people in their homes.

Re:What's the big fuss? (2)

RandomPeon (230002) | more than 13 years ago | (#407214)

Yep, the moderators had to go moderating a reasonably-stated but unpopular opinion flamebait.

I think that everyone would agree that the content creator should have the last word over how his content should be used.

I don't think so. The right to control one's content is absolutely artificial - it exists only because someone says so. In the United States, these rights are granted for the public good with certain limitations, specifically fair use. They are supposed to expire eventually, at which time everyone gets equal access to the work. Unfortunately, content-controllers, (distinct from creators, who usually have no say inh the distribution of their content) are afraid of being made irrelevant by advances in technology. So they engage in collusion and deny consumers their rights regarding content. Then they purchase legistlation to prohibit the progress of technology so they don't become obsolete.

Analogy: In 1910 live theaters realize that movies will crush their business - it isn't fair that movies are able to be preformed in one location and shown everywhere!!! And movies can be filmed on location in tropical paradises and shown in Podunk! This is going to destroy the entertainment industry. So they get Congress making it illegal to show a movie more than 30 miles from where it was filmed.

Explain to me how this is any different than content-control technology?

thanks slashdot (2)

Dr. Awktagon (233360) | more than 13 years ago | (#407215)

Thanks for not using the Industry's propaganda terms like "copy protection". "Copy prevention" is more accurate, but the best term to use would be "access control".

Damn, I sound like RMS..but...everytime some writes or says those propaganda words, they are implicitly supporting the Industry's arguments!

Re: Bullshit. (2)

Bonker (243350) | more than 13 years ago | (#407216)

You must be one of those listening to the 'propogandistic lies'. Have you ever heard of the MSDN program? You get just about every piece of software and development tool that Microsoft publishes for less than $2000 a year for 'development purposes'. 'Street' value on this software is easily tens of thounsands of dollars. These prices are set arbitrarily. This 'theft induced price raise' is a complete fabrication.

Re:A Modest Proposal (3)

ewhac (5844) | more than 13 years ago | (#407217)

If you are sued, then the proscribed measures are in place, and OMI certification is denied. QED :-).

As for getting manufacturers to submit to testing, that would happen on a "pro-bono" basis, at least initially. Since an OMI certification currently has no value in the marketplace, manufacturers would have no reason to seek it. So studies and certifications would be done in a sort of "Consumer Reports" manner. Once OMI compliance becomes a consumer requirement, manufacturers will seek certification directly.

It's a risky proposition -- the risk being that the public may Just Not Give a Damn -- but I think it's worth a try.

Schwab

C-64 copy protection nostalgia (slightly OT) (3)

Dr.Dubious DDQ (11968) | more than 13 years ago | (#407218)

Sounds like more Commodore 64-style copy protection.
[..]
remove the checking, and the problem is solved.

You know, I'm not big-time "hacker" (or "cracker", for that matter) or anything, but I can say that the very first thing I ever did with a computer that I could call a real "hack" involved exactly this issue.

For those who don't know, C-64 copy protection often seemed to involve intentionally messing up part of the disk in a particular way, so that when you tried to read from that part, you'd get an error code. Then, they'd just have their program try to read the disk in that spot - if there wasn't an error, or it wasn't the RIGHT error, it was obviously a copy ("Obviously", copy programs wouldn't copy errors, would they? [More advanced bit-for-bit 'nibbler' copiers popped up in short order that DID, so you could once again make functional backups of your software...but I digress.]) The problem is, every time the floppy drive hit an error, it would reset itself by "banging" the head repeatedly against the stop, eventually knocking it out of alignment.

Many years ago, I owned a copy of "Stellar 7" for the Commodore 64, and this one was particularly egregious about copy protection. As I recall, it read errors from the drive four times when you started loading, two or four times when you started a game, and two or four times every time you progressed from one level to another.

I got really tired of listening to my floppy drive knocking itself to pieces whenever I wanted to play a game, so I dug out a sector editor, found the bit of code that said (essentially) "if you don't get this error, stop" and tweaked it so that it would continue whether the error was there or not. Then I copied the disk sans errors, so I could play without ruining my floppy drive.

[sniffle]...ah, those were the days


---
"They have strategic air commands, nuclear submarines, and John Wayne. We have this"

Re:It's just sad (4)

crucini (98210) | more than 13 years ago | (#407222)

If you're so dead set against "intellectual property", then what does the perversion of copyright law have to do with anything?

Copyright law in the US is not based on the concept of intellectual property. The founding fathers believed in property as an absolute right which was recognized, not granted, by government. However copyright is an artificial right created by a government for a utilitarian reason - to encourage the arts and sciences. Copyright is not a governmental recognition of a natural right.
Therefore, it's quite logical that people who do not believe in intellectual property are upset at the perversion of copyright law.
Copyright is now being extended and defended on the basis of the 'intellectual property rights' of the copyright holders. There are no such rights.

It's just sad (4)

Dark Paladin (116525) | more than 13 years ago | (#407223)

That's how I feel today about all these news reports - the Feds teaming up against alt2600 in the DCCS case, Napster all but gone, and now these proposals to prevent our own information from being traded about.

Yes, I understand the need for copy protection - I hate it when folks sell pirated copies of games because I know that's money that should have gone to a hard working developer. But it seems that corporate interests have gone out on such an insane bend to make certain that the people who might rip them off don't - even at the expense of the privacy and freedoms of law abiding citizens.

Probably the worst part is the possibility of what might follow. There was a joke made that the RIAA will sue people who sing copyrighted songs in the showers. On Ubersoft [ubersoft.net] they have a joke about a gigantic company's word processing software preventing the federal government from prosecuting them for illegal actions by detecting what words are typed and changing them.

And that's what makes me so depressed about these articles. It always starts off for "the good" reasons - copy protection good, so copy protection technology has to be good too. The problem is that we all know we can't trust other people to make our own decisions for us, and the second that the power is taken out of our hands, the possibility for corruption is there. What happens when the "copy protection" technology is modified to not allowed "unsupported" or "illegal" software (ie: "dangerous" GPL software that doesn't make the corporations any money).

That's the problem with the copy control schemes. I don't fear people taking my words and claiming them for their own. I fear the people who might prevent my words from being seen at all in the name of "the good of the business" interests.


John "Dark Paladin" Hummel

Re:It's just sad (4)

RandomPeon (230002) | more than 13 years ago | (#407224)

I'm on a one-person crusade to get the phrase "content-control" used for these types of systems. Two reasons:

1)It's more inclusive - it describes all the DMCA-protected "advancements" we hate. In addition to technology which takes away our fair-use rights, it includes the really evil stuff like region-coding, limited usage content, subscription software, and so on. The problem with "copy protection" is that these companies don't want to stop there - they want to control everything we do with content.

2)It's inflammatory. The press picked up the term "partial-birth abortion" even though the medical term is "intact dilation and extraction". The language alone gave an awfully big boost to the prolife side on this one. "Copy control" does the same thing - it has the worst possible connotation and is still accurate. (Not trying to start the abortion debate, this is just an example. I have expressed no opinion on abortion itself, please don't use this thread to do so either. Go to Kuro5hin for that.)

A Modest Proposal (5)

ewhac (5844) | more than 13 years ago | (#407225)

It seems there should be better fora for floating this idea, but I can't think of what they may be, and it seems time is no longer on our side. Thus:

The biggest problem is that the copy control technologies are insidious: They are inserted into flashy, cool devices or software without informing the customer they're there, thus thwarting their desire (or not) to avoid them. For example, did you know the latest WinAmp contains copy control measures from InterTrust? Of course not. AOL conveniently "forgot" to tell you.

We could create a list of products, companies, and/or technologies to avoid, but then the copy control philistines would simply change the names of their stuff on a regular basis, and the fight would devolve into a shell game. This lets them say, "Oh, no, we stopped incorporated CPRM at customer request!" and then fail to tell you that it simply got renamed to ICST (Insidious Citizen-Screwing Technology). You're still screwed, but they get to play PR games with us.

Thus, my proposal: I propose the creation of the Open Media Initiative, a non-profit entity whose charter is to analyze new digital hardware and software, and report whether they contain copy control measures. The Open Media Initiative (OMI) would promote the following values:

  • Technological measures restricting duplication of any data may not exist.
  • Technological measures restricting usage of any data, regardless of the type of data or the intended use, shall not exist.
  • Technological measures to record or report to third parties usage, duplication, or any other activity directly or indirectly involving said data shall not exist.

Note that only technological measures are addressed. Social and legal restrictions are free to exist (or not); the OMI simply prohibits their ensconcement in code or hardware. (For the purposes of the OMI, executable programs are considered data.)

Devices and software meeting this three-pronged test shall be eligible to use an OMI certification logo on their products, so that consumers will be able to immediately identify compliant, safe products, and avoid non-compliant ones. A list of products receiving certification would also appear on the OMI's Web site.

Yes, publicizing OMI and the OMI logo, at least in the "traditional" manner, would be horribly expensive. However, as things stand now, if you're a member of the tech community, and are rightfully repulsed by these encroachments on the freedoms we worked so hard to build into our systems, explaining the issues to, say, your grandmother could be a laborious process. However, if you could simply tell her, "Don't buy anything unless it has this logo on it," the problem is considerably simplified.

By way of example, current CD-ROM burners would be eligible for the OMI logo, as would Linux and the most recent rev of Unreal Tournament. SDMI-enabled MP3 players, Windows, and Quake3:Arena would not.

So, who's with me?

Schwab
(Dear Lord, what have I let myself in for?)

Re:It's just sad (5)

StoryMan (130421) | more than 13 years ago | (#407226)

Well, and remember this: that the idea of "copyright" was not created in order to protect a monopoly or to make the copyright holders "rich".

The essence of copyright was that it was devised to promote the robust dissemination of information by compensating artists for their work. And -- as if that weren't enough -- the idea of "copyright" was that it was *limited* protection.

It's time Boies starts harping on this, too. The RIAA (and everyone else) is using "copyright" as a shield to legally (or, I suppose, illegally) construct monopolistic, monolithic conglomerates. That's not what "copyright" is about. Never has been but -- because of Hilary Rosen and Jack Valenti -- is clear that that's what it is becoming.

"Copyright" is yet another example of corporate exploitation. (As if we need another.)

Sorta like the absurd comments last week about the "dangers" of "open source" and how it threatens "intellectual property."

Come on, stop and think: *intellectual property*? What kind of capitalistic, corporate oxymoron is that? It's absurd and every day grows more so.

double talk (5)

lupa (218669) | more than 13 years ago | (#407228)

from the cnet article: "It is a compromise between what an end user expects to be able to do and the content providers' wish to protect their material," he said. "We are not trying to take away users' rights or capabilities."

i don't see how either statement can be true. protecting copyright by restricting the usage of blank media DIRECTLY interferes with what an end user expects to be able to do with said blank media. and hiding it under a blanket like "the plan isn't JUST about copy protection, but also about enhancing security" is an obvious and sad marketing effort to try to find some credibile partner function for copy protection.

now, i know the average consumer isn't the best educated person in the world, but do they really expect computer users to fall for this plan?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

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>