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!

New Consortium to Push UDI and Include DRM

CmdrTaco posted more than 8 years ago | from the oh-noes-not-another-format dept.

Displays 264

MarsGov writes "Intel, Apple, Samsung, LG, Nat Semi and Silicon Image formed a consortium to promote Unified Display Interface (UDI) as the new standard to connect computers to monitors and TVs. UDI will be HDMI and HDCP "anti-piracy" compatible. "

cancel ×

264 comments

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

Hardware DRM Serves One Purpose (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14309496)

So much of the computer industry today is based on preventing competition. Software patents, DRM, DMCA lawsuits for interoperating with others' software... (Though reverse-engineering for interoperability was supposed to be allowed, just look at Blizzard and bnetd to see how this turned out in practice.)

Does anyone really think hardware manufacturers are promoting DRM to fight "piracy"? Kind-hearted, generous manufacturers just looking out for the poor little media industry? No, they are racing to be the first with a de-facto DRM system everyone has to use, so that they can license their DRM and be the toll-collectors for all digital communication. Nothing more, nothing less.

Whether a sufficient majority of corporations ends up accepting one of the DRM systems, or Congress ends up enacting one of them as law, it has virtually nothing to do with stopping "piracy" and everything to do with eliminating competitors, both in the hardware and media industries.

Re:Hardware DRM Serves One Purpose (4, Insightful)

warmcat (3545) | more than 8 years ago | (#14309654)

AIUI all of these gatekeeper DRM technologies only operate when taking media that tells them to operate. So if you buy a HD "DVD" in 2006 it may not output at HD if it doesn't like your pre-crypto HD TV, but if you hook up your HD camera footage to your TV then it will operate correctly at the highest resolution.

Therefore the features ARE in there to please the locked-up content creators, and to get their systems blessed by those content creators so they will allow their content to interface to it and the systems will sell.

That's an important distinction because nothing in these locked up media systems prevents the creation of alternative liberally licensed media: there is no "toll collector" aspect to it I can see.

If you don't like the way the locked-up media is being increasingly locked up, just think "What would rms do?"

Re:Hardware DRM Serves One Purpose (3, Insightful)

IAmTheDave (746256) | more than 8 years ago | (#14309846)

Therefore the features ARE in there to please the locked-up content creators, and to get their systems blessed by those content creators so they will allow their content to interface to it and the systems will sell.

See, that's not entirely true. In fact, hardware has the capability to ignore DRM, which is why the entertainment industry is always trying to get laws passed that REQUIRE hardware to consult the DRM in the content before playing said content.

However, you're right, it is to "please" the industry, because if the industry is "pleased" then that particular brand of DRM will show up in the laws the RI/MP/**/AA write for the protection of the American People, and thus licensing fees will roll in, because, you know, you HAVE to license it or your product breaks laws.

These companies see DRM as something that is just a truth, and laws will be enacted regarding it, so why fight it, make money licensing it. Or in the case of this consortium, don't license it, but the best offense is defense, so protect yourself from having to pay to license another company's technology. That's the point of this consortium - everyone agree on a standard, and noone will collect while others are paying out the nose.

Re:Hardware DRM Serves One Purpose (2, Insightful)

warmcat (3545) | more than 8 years ago | (#14310011)

> See, that's not entirely true. In fact, hardware
> has the capability to ignore DRM, which is why the
> entertainment industry is always trying to get laws
> passed that REQUIRE hardware to consult the DRM in
> the content before playing said content.

Considering HDTV-type appliances, and not consoles, the laws I heard about all involve a demand (bit, descriptor or whatever) about DRM encoded in the *media* that must be honoured by the players if present.

Neither the laws nor the DRM apply to media where the DRM demand is absent because the content is liberally licensed. One can say then that the laws are not evil if you will be consuming media without those bits set since all the crypto becomes completely transparent. The content vendors can set that bit if they like and it really flows from Copyright law alone that you must abide by its license or feel the hot breath of law enforcement on your neck. The problem is not that they can now additionally police their license in the players more effectively (tha, eg, Macrovision) but that you wanted their content without wanting to have to abide by the license terms.

If you find the license terms unacceptable them rms has shown the way. In that sense the more locked up and hateful the existing media restrictions become the better.

Re:Hardware DRM Serves One Purpose (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14310077)

The toll-collector aspect is twofold:

1) You have to buy hardware with DRM built into it -- otherwise you can't communicate with anyone else who's in the DRM chain.

Usually this DRM is protected by patents and/or trade-secrets, so every individual piece of hardware needs a license from the IP holder. At the very least, it requires knowledge of private encryption keys and/or registration of public encryption keys with a central authority. This probably won't be a free service, and by definition can't be a public service, otherwise the private keys will be exposed to the public and the system does nothing.

2) Despite what they tell us, a working DRM system cannot freely permit unscreened content from third-party, independent producers.

Here's why: if the system allows unflagged media to enter and be displayed normally, it allows an independent content creator to release non-DRM-encumbered content. It also allows anyone with the know-how to bypass the DRM on a single piece of licensed content and re-release it without the DRM. Thereafter, anyone using p2p sharing will just download the re-released, non-DRM version, and it will be appropriately non-flagged as if it were a piece of independent content. Voila, the DRM chain is broken.

Therefore, the only DRM system that has a chance of working is one that requires all content to be registered in some manner, even if the registration is provided without charge (at a loss) to independent creators. This means you can't distribute your newest novel without going through a corporate/government approval body.

It's certainly possible no functional DRM system will ever enter widespread use, and I hope this is the case. However, the only functional DRM systems will meet both of the above criteria. In my limited foresight, that is what the DRM supporters are actually attempting, only in small steps at first.

(I wrote this reply soon after you posted, but Slashdot's excessive anti-anonymity measures have delayed its posting for over 58 minutes. For this reason, I'll be unable to reply again even should your life depend upon a response.)

Re:Hardware DRM Serves One Purpose (2, Insightful)

spitzak (4019) | more than 8 years ago | (#14309986)

No. It is highly likely that future devices will NOT play even non-protected content to a non-DRM display device. This is simply because the circuitry will not talk to the device unless it can negotiate it's DRM encryption. The original poster is quite correct that the designers expect to force every manufacturer to pay for their technology. If they were seriously interested in preventing piracy they would release a totally free design so everybody can build it, with some kind of registry of what keys are legit as opposed to fake keys built by hobbyists to try to circumvent.

Re:Hardware DRM Serves One Purpose (1)

warmcat (3545) | more than 8 years ago | (#14310036)

> No. It is highly likely that future devices will NOT play
> even non-protected content to a non-DRM display device

What makes you think that this is the case? The laws being mooted involve "Broadcast flags" and so on to indicate protected content that needs the crypto handshake. Do you really think HD camcorders, for example, will be unable to display recorded content at HD resolution?

Re:Hardware DRM Serves One Purpose (1)

Jobe_br (27348) | more than 8 years ago | (#14310049)

IMO, what is needed in this case is for consumers or technologists, even companies that are innovating new products, to demand that any technology that is written into a law that forces compliance meet certain Open standards. The technology needs to be entirely transparent and open, software interfaces/implementations are provided without any license/copyright/use restrictions. Any hardware is provided with full schematics, fully documented, etc. Any and all processes, technologies, software, algorithms, etc. are provided without patent encumbrances.

If this approach is not adopted, to its fullest extreme, innovation will be impacted. In a society and economy based on capitalism, dependent on ever increasing growth, anything less would be quite bad.

HDCP (5, Funny)

Landak (798221) | more than 8 years ago | (#14309502)

HDCP protection you say? Good thing it's already been broken [macfergus.com] (albeit anonymously). Coming new to you, DRM'd speakers, and your very own set of ContentProtection ((TM)) eyelids!

Great... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14309507)

It's a felony for me to hook a real monitor up to one of these things, right?

Re:Great... (1, Offtopic)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 8 years ago | (#14309680)

Wwooooooo. Your such bad boy! And I thought I was top dog around town when I rape young girls.

Seriously, our legal priorities in this country are FUCKED UP! Can we please reserve harsh punishments for the true "scum of the earth" type people?

Re:Great... (1)

gnud (934243) | more than 8 years ago | (#14309797)

uhhm, how is this offtopic? Read parent post before moderating, perhaps?

[OT] Agile Partners asks: Is slashdot dying? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14309511)

I saw this on digg.com and yes, I know this is OT, but I also know that it will never get past the janitors...

Is Slashdot dying? [agilepartners.com]
Tuesday, December 20th, 2005 at 9:40 am by John Berry

Slashdot has long been a significant source of daily news for the tech community (dupes, typos, trolls and all). Over the past year, however, I've noticed a gradual decrease in its importance as a source of information. Others around me have echoed similar thoughts, so I gathered some statistics to see if this is a growing trend.

Without access to long-term Slashdot usage metrics, I looked at the number of comments per story for the last 7 years by writing a few scripts to walk through the Slashdot daily archives, cache them locally, parse the data and then generate a file with the output.

There appears to be fairly significant falloff of average comments per story at the beginning of both 2004 and 2005. I also graphed the output of each day's average comments per post as an xy scatter, reflected below with a trendline.

Note that the count for 9/11/2001 is not drawn (but included in the calculations), as it is exceptionally large.

This second graph reinforces the initial observation that community activity is on the decline.
Why is this happening?

The habits of those around me indicate that the decline in Slashdot activity is due to the following:

        * Broad adoption of RSS: Feeds are ubiquitous, and the result is that everyone can easily customize their daily information exposure -- much more precisely than CmdrTaco and the boys can.

        * Emergence of social applications: Yep. Web2.0 apps are killing Slashdot. Relying on the community to process information relevance for individual consumption is a hell of a lot more efficient than Slashdot's closed door approach (open source indeed). Sites like digg.com and the del.icio.us/popular are far more reliable indicators of what is being talked about.

See Digg Just Might Bury Slashdot at wired.com and The Rise of Digg.com on Slashdot.
What does this mean?

Each of the above linked stories suggest that users are relying on digg for timely information, and go to Slashdot when they want insightful commentary (digg and del.icio.us are for tuning in, Slashdot is for participating). This would imply a drop-off in visitor traffic, but not necessarily community activity (which we obviously see is happening). A sustained decline in both traffic and participation would be bad signs indeed.

If the pool of comments continues to drop, I suspect the signal-to-noise ratio will take an unfavorable turn. If Slashdot can't do fast, and if it has no community, what remains?

I'll to continue to track comment activity every few months to see if the trend continues.

Sounds cool (5, Funny)

ReformedExCon (897248) | more than 8 years ago | (#14309514)

I'd love if there were a DRM system that worked invisibly and was effective at both stopping piracy as well as permitting fair usage.

That would be awesome.

Re:Sounds cool (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 8 years ago | (#14309589)

There used to be. It was called copyright law. Then large numbers of selfish people decided they were above the law, and it ceased to be as effective at fighting copyright infringement. You can't really blame the media industry for fighting back (though you certainly can challenge their methods and fight to defend your legitimate rights as a user of the content).

Re:Sounds cool (1)

giorgiofr (887762) | more than 8 years ago | (#14309650)

So, what's YOUR problem, selfless guy? You are so respectful of the law and pay your dues, you have certainly nothing to hide or to fear. The most draconian DRM will be no problem for you.

Re:Sounds cool (2, Insightful)

FatMacDaddy (878246) | more than 8 years ago | (#14309912)

"There used to be. It was called copyright law. Then large numbers of selfish people decided they were above the law, and it ceased to be as effective at fighting copyright infringement. You can't really blame the media industry for fighting back (though you certainly can challenge their methods and fight to defend your legitimate rights as a user of the content)."

Hmmm, your post seems to have gotten scrambled during transmission. I'll fix it up for you.

There used to be. It was called copyright law. Then a bunch of corporations decided that the law wasn't good enough and we didn't really need a public domain. You can't really blame consumers for fighting back (though you can certainly challenge their methods).

There, much better.

Re:Sounds cool (4, Insightful)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | more than 8 years ago | (#14309984)

It was called copyright law. Then large numbers of selfish people decided they were above the law, and it ceased to be as effective at fighting copyright infringement.

Yeah, it surely was bad when industry decided they were above the law of the land and got Congress to create unconstitutional copyright laws that created eternal monopolies on content to people who weren't the creators of that content. Once citizens saw that copyright was about greed rather than about allowing artists to make a living off their work, it ceased to be effective.

You can't really blame the media industry for fighting back

Oh! I'm sorry, I misunderstood you. When you said "above the law" I naturally thought you meant the bastards who have shredded the law of the land in order to maximize their profits, not the guy who wants to make a mix CD for his girlfriend. Yeah, we really have to fight that guy.

Re:Sounds cool (4, Insightful)

bechthros (714240) | more than 8 years ago | (#14310031)

"Then large numbers of selfish people decided they were above the law"

You're exactly right. And those people were mostly Disney, and the Gershwin heirs. [wikipedia.org] They decided that the words that were in the Constitution regarding copyright and public domain works weren't good enough. So they bribed Mary Bono and some others in Washington into changing the rules, thereby freezing the date at which works enter the public domain.

So hey. You wanna play rough? That's cool. But it's fucking ON now.

Re:Sounds cool (1)

ajs318 (655362) | more than 8 years ago | (#14310058)

Copy prevention is mathematically impossible; this is not a limitation of present technology, but a limitation of the universe. I hope I do not need to explain why.

Of course you have the added problem that the motivation which encourages consumers to copy content, is exactly the same one that encourages content creators to seek ever more payment for it: the deep-seated Cave-man hunter-gatherer instinct. Twenty thousand years of evolution have not altered the instinct, just created new ways for it to manifest itself.

The best way I can think of to put it is like this: Whenever you get something without paying for it, your brain rewards you by ordering the release of a shot of endorphins {basically, your body's homebrew version of heroin; or more accurately, heroin and similar substances artificially stimulate the endorphin receptors}. This is exactly the same as what happened when Cave-man brought down an animal with a spear. We like the effects when our endorphin receptors get stimulated, so we tend to repeat behaviour which results in those effects. And whenever a fatcat executive thinks of a way to gouge more money out of already-overstretched consumers without any extra effort, their brain orders them a shot of endorphins too.

I have just one piece of advice for the record, TV and movie industries. Ask yourselves why, when there is a photocopier in many newsagents' shops, do people still buy newspapers, magazines and books, instead of copying them? Then try applying the same principle to other forms of content.

Re:Sounds cool (1)

cyber_rigger (527103) | more than 8 years ago | (#14309595)

I'd love if there were a DRM system that worked invisibly and was effective at both stopping piracy as well as permitting fair usage.

I would love it better if there were no DRM systems .

Re:Sounds cool (1)

waif69 (322360) | more than 8 years ago | (#14309615)

MPAA/RIAA defines fair usage: By purchasing this overpriced media, you are granted certain rights. You have the right to watch/listen to this media one time only, if you watch/listen to this media with other persons present, you are required to pay a surcharge that will be automatically deducted from you bank account. If you desire to watch/listen to this media again, you have the right to have the purchase price of this media charged to your bank account directly or to present your financial information to store that will provide you another overpriced media that you will have the right to watch/listen to one time. You have the right to not watch/listen to this media after purchasing. You have the right to give this media to someone else as a gift, providing you do not watch/listen to it first. These are your rights as granted by the MPAA/RIAA Congress of America.

Re:Sounds cool (1)

Tethys_was_taken (813654) | more than 8 years ago | (#14309733)

I'd love if there were a DRM system that worked invisibly and was effective at both stopping piracy as well as permitting fair usage.
While you're getting him that Santa, how about bringing me a pony?

Sony (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14309515)

Fuck Intel, Apple, Samsung, LG, Nat Semi and Silicon Image. They're as bad as Sony.

DRM versus the freeing of information (4, Insightful)

dada21 (163177) | more than 8 years ago | (#14309521)

Those familiar with my anti-copyright stance will see in this example how terrible copyright legislation is for content creation. The intent of copyright (to give authors a certain time-limited protection over what they create) has been destroyed, and is now controlled solely by a few massive corporations that control almost every form of media.

UDI is the final step in allowing them to control the old media formats (TV and radio generally). It WILL happen, as Congress and those who control the old formats fail to see that they're outdated and no one cares.

The Internet blew up, in my opinion, based entirely on people's ability to be heard and to hear others. You're seeing millions of bloggers who write freely in order to be heard, not in order to sell their thoughts by coercing others not to copy them. You see people quoted (not always being referenced either), you see people copying and re-posting, and you're seeing massive "piracy" of every copywritten work. Copyright not only failed, but ignoring it created the biggest form of media in literally years. The Internet is at least two orders of magnitude bigger than all the old-media productions in all of history, combined.

What is the next step? Major media companies will continue to restrict content, and billions of small content creates will get together in tiny groups and capture that market. Podcasting is replacing the radio for a small percentage today, but in 10 years where will radio be? It will be an overregulated monopoly that no one listens to because it attempts to target too broad a market.

TV and cable will be another forgotten phenomenon, at least in the way we watch it today. Hundreds of channels of regulated media can not compete with millions of vidcasts, especially as production qualities go up.

Look, folks, DRM doesn't matter. Communists wanted everyone equal, libertarians wanted everyone free. The Internet offers both side a solution that could never come from law or regulation or mandates -- people able to meet one another's needs, disregarding borders and laws and restrictions that we faced for hundreds of years.

DRM? Go for it, big producers. I'm finding new forms of entertainment every day, and it doesn't come in a pretty package and it isn't advertised by beautiful people.

Re:DRM versus the freeing of information (4, Insightful)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 8 years ago | (#14309729)

DRM? Go for it, big producers. I'm finding new forms of entertainment every day, and it doesn't come in a pretty package and it isn't advertised by beautiful people.

You do seem to forget that billions of people actually like pretty packages and beautiful people, and that's why they pirate the work in those forms, performed by those beautiful people. Some people even take on projects that they can only afford to produce if they know that they can sell their work for actual, spendable money. People who deliberately seek out bar bands, dinner theater actors, and street magicians for their entertainment always have been able to, and always will be able to. People who want to see what someone with the budget for a cast of thousands, exotic locations, thousands of CGI processors chugging away, etc., aren't going to go away. But the people producing works like that can't do so if everything they do is ripped off. That doesn't matter to you, because you don't like that sort of entertainment. Which, is fine, since the people you do like aren't worried about the cash flow anyway, and even if you do buy media from such people, they probably wouldn't want to stamp their data as rights-managed, lest they offend you and their other fan.

Re:DRM versus the freeing of information (3, Interesting)

dada21 (163177) | more than 8 years ago | (#14309812)

Actually, I love big productions. My lady and I go to other cities all over the world to see them live, and we attend film festivals to see them first.

When Serenity came out in theaters, I liked the plot so much I went 4 times (x2). When the DVD came out yesterday, I bought one copy for myself and 6 for presents. Yet when Serenity was released on ThePirateBay, I downloaded it until I could buy it. Why did I pay Joss Whedon and Universal for their DVD? Because I wanted to support their FUTURE efforts, not their past ones.

Nothing prevents content producers from protecting their creations in a free market. I'd say you have a good argument up to 1995 or so, but with the Internet, content producers can completely control their own content with zero laws. All they have to do is create stronger encryption standards, get together and make hardware that follows it, and they're there. That's what they're doing here. I am completely fine with content creators doing this -- I don't believe in copyright so I don't believe in fair use.

The consumers will also be fine with DRM. It will only succeed if it meets the needs of all parties. If it doesn't, another format will succeed. You can't stop entertainment, but you can stop those who don't allow every party to profit from the transaction.

Re:DRM versus the freeing of information (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14309934)

I don't believe in copyright so I don't believe in fair use.


I don't believe in copyright either, that's why my use of downloaded media seems very fair to me. ;)

Re:DRM versus the freeing of information (1)

daw (7006) | more than 8 years ago | (#14310008)

Nothing prevents content producers from protecting their creations in a free market. I'd say you have a good argument up to 1995 or so, but with the Internet, content producers can completely control their own content with zero laws. All they have to do is create stronger encryption standards, get together and make hardware that follows it, and they're there. That's what they're doing here. I am completely fine with content creators doing this -- I don't believe in copyright so I don't believe in fair use.

All fine and good, except only half the project is content producers banding together to create stronger technical protections and hardware to enforce it. The problematic half is them banding together to pressure for the passage of laws mandating that every TV contain these technologies, criminalizing hacking them etc etc. So the libertarian "let the market decide if it wants DRM" dream is, well, a dream.

I don't believe in copyright either, but, due to its legal side, DRM is like copyright only worse. You may not believe in fair use, but copyright with fair use is less repugnant than copyright without it.

Re:DRM versus the freeing of information (3, Interesting)

dada21 (163177) | more than 8 years ago | (#14310079)

All fine and good, except only half the project is content producers banding together to create stronger technical protections and hardware to enforce it. The problematic half is them banding together to pressure for the passage of laws mandating that every TV contain these technologies, criminalizing hacking them etc etc. So the libertarian "let the market decide if it wants DRM" dream is, well, a dream.

Right now, they rely on the DMCA and other stupid laws to protect their BADLY WRITTEN DRM. If they want stronger DRM, they have to realize they can't rely on laws to protect bad programming.

I personally wouldn't buy a proprietary media format, but if consumers do, then producers should be free to make whatever they want. I believe that competition will let the cream rise to the top.

I don't believe in copyright either, but, due to its legal side, DRM is like copyright only worse. You may not believe in fair use, but copyright with fair use is less repugnant than copyright without it.

Let's ignore copyright for a moment and look at the most restrictive protections on content not using the law: subscriptions. Many writers (including myself) have private subscription newsletters that people pay to receive. They could copy these newsletters (and some do) the majority don't -- they want the information and they don't want many others knowing about it. I look at some of the US$1000 per year newsletters I used to subscribe to and I never saw them hitting the public eye.

The same is true with any information. You can sell information that is valuable, and you can sell information that isn't. If it doesn't have much value, you have to make your money by offering it to the widest audience at the lowest price. $2 for a TV show per person (x10,000) versus $1000 for an investment newsletter (x20) is the same money. Which has a bigger market, and which is more valuable?

Copyright can't change simple economics. If you make a product that is good quality and people want to see more, they'll pay for it. If they don't care about it, they won't.

Re:DRM versus the freeing of information (2, Insightful)

Secret Agent X23 (760764) | more than 8 years ago | (#14310109)

People who want to see what someone with the budget for a cast of thousands, exotic locations, thousands of CGI processors chugging away, etc., aren't going to go away. But the people producing works like that can't do so if everything they do is ripped off.

I keep hearing that, yet the industry keeps pumping out high-budget movies. Should I assume, then, that the rate of piracy isn't really very bad?

Me verses you. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14310127)

"Those familiar with my anti-copyright stance will see in this example how terrible copyright legislation is for content creation. The intent of copyright (to give authors a certain time-limited protection over what they create) has been destroyed, and is now controlled solely by a few massive corporations that control almost every form of media."

"All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2005 OSTG. "

Wow! So you're a "massive corporation"? Looks like you might want to go on a diet.

"Look, folks, DRM doesn't matter. Communists wanted everyone equal, libertarians wanted everyone free. The Internet offers both side a solution that could never come from law or regulation or mandates -- people able to meet one another's needs, disregarding borders and laws and restrictions that we faced for hundreds of years."

Funny how slashdotters fall upon those "laws and restrictions" every time there's a GPL violation. Hey why don't we simply dispense with those cumbersome "borders" and depend on everyone being good boys and girls.

We already have a perfectly good sytem but apparently a few don't want to use it. I make something people want, and people vote with their dollars weither they want it. Copyright, much like the GPL is for those who don't want to play by the rules.

"UDI is the final step in allowing them to control the old media formats (TV and radio generally). It WILL happen, as Congress and those who control the old formats fail to see that they're outdated and no one cares"

Psychology 101: I can't get what I want, so I really didn't want it in the first place.

"What is the next step? Major media companies will continue to restrict content, and billions of small content creates will get together in tiny groups and capture that market."

Small content producers are a different species of human beings. They believe that everyone is good, and therefore they don't need any kind of legal protection from those who would abuse them.

"DRM? Go for it, big producers. I'm finding new forms of entertainment every day, and it doesn't come in a pretty package and it isn't advertised by beautiful people."

And it took the stick to convince others to "just say no". Glad to hear that you think that piracy is just confined to those you hate (big producers, beautiful people, pretty package).

Protection (1)

medgooroo (884060) | more than 8 years ago | (#14309529)

What concievable reason is there for users to want this kinda of protection on a video standard? Eliza protection? feh. Surely it just takes one manufacturer to develop something "clean" for a similar price and it'll be a preferable product. HM. and perhaps users to care...

Lobbyists will stop that. (1)

bigtallmofo (695287) | more than 8 years ago | (#14309639)

Surely it just takes one manufacturer to develop something "clean" for a similar price and it'll be a preferable product.

Uh-oh, you just told them the hole in their logic! Now they'll have to get their lobbyists in gear to make it a crime to:

1. Manufacture, advertise, sell or possess a display device that isn't protected by DRM. The fine will be $100,000 per incident with an incident defined as infinite theoretical losses effectively making your fine infinite. Just write a sideways "8" in the amount column when sending in your check.
2. Scribble on the monitor with a #2 pencil or some other such simple DRM-thwarting technique.

Re:Lobbyists will stop that. (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 8 years ago | (#14309770)

Go google the "Fritz chip"?

I credit slashdot for stopping the bill. Believe it or not after links to elected us officials came in posts the bill was canned. Thousands of angry emails scared the politicians.

Take a lesson.

Too bad this is a consortium and not a bill. Otherwise the slashdot effect can alter the laws for our own good.

Re:Protection (1)

Xrikcus (207545) | more than 8 years ago | (#14309768)

It worked very well for DVD players that ignore region codes, but it only takes a fiddling of the law to disallow it and you have to rely on illegal imports...

Re:Protection (1)

ergo98 (9391) | more than 8 years ago | (#14309911)

What concievable reason is there for users to want this kinda of protection on a video standard?

A lot of media companies are fearful of PCs. A lot of PC companies want to support the media companies, and to make them more comfortable, because it expands their market (e.g. media center PCs that support digital/HDTV feeds, for instance), and brings more utility to their customers.

doesn't appear to be required, though? (4, Interesting)

Artifex (18308) | more than 8 years ago | (#14309533)

Looking past the news report and skimming the documents, I see nothing in the core spec [certek.cc] (vol 2 [certek.cc] ) nor the physical spec [certek.cc] that requires DRM by default? If I'm reading the specs right, It may be HDMI and HDCP compatible, but you can certainly develop without them. I could be confused, of course, so wait to see if Stallman to revisits the project [slashdot.org] . Notice that this project has been going on for quite some time. :)

I guess the movie studios and music companies.... (0)

8127972 (73495) | more than 8 years ago | (#14309535)

..... have managed to bully hardware and software companies into playing ball with them. I guess doing this is cheaper than being sued.

Re:I guess the movie studios and music companies.. (4, Insightful)

Anita Coney (648748) | more than 8 years ago | (#14309629)

I don't think hardware manufacturers were bullied. If DRM is mandated, e.g., to watch HD on a computer you need a certain videocard and a certain monitor, then users will have to upgrade. If they upgrade, they'll have to buy all new stuff. This is a huge boon to manufacturers and software companies.

Re:I guess the movie studios and music companies.. (1)

jZnat (793348) | more than 8 years ago | (#14310120)

Dude, people are still running Windows 98; I severely doubt that there will be any mass migrations to "new and improved" DRM'd hardware. My parents still use VHS instead of a PVR, and I'd have to say that they're more technologically aware than Joe Beerbelly. The only thing to fear for now (other than the public's ignorance) is the **AA lobbying to get DRM a mandated part of hardware, also outlawing analog devices (despite how futile that idea is).

In other news, /.ers need to write to their state's congresscritters (if applicable). I'm sure the EFF [eff.org] has some pre-written letters you can send.

Bullying isn't necessary. (2, Insightful)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 8 years ago | (#14309665)

These companies try to develop the best DRM technology because they know that the media companies are heavily, heavily lobbying on making DRM required in everything you see, hear, or experience. If their system becomes the one legislatively mandated, well then, you've got yourself a government-supported monopoly there, and a steady income from the licensing of the DRM technology, for which you can charge whatever you want.

Of course, if DRM becomes law, I'll be among the first to break it.

Re:Bullying isn't necessary. (1)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 8 years ago | (#14309710)

Oh, and if you're looking for an example [macrovision.com] ...

New World Order Accomplish: +1, Patriotic (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14309537)



Remember : Buck Fush [whitehouse.gov] .

Quagmire accomplished [whitehouse.org] .

Sincerely as always,
Kilgore Trout, M.D.

Anti fair use? (1)

cyber_rigger (527103) | more than 8 years ago | (#14309545)

I get the feeling that this will limit fair use as well.

and obsolete 15 seconds after release (5, Insightful)

GuyverDH (232921) | more than 8 years ago | (#14309548)

Dongles anyone? Interposed between computer and device that override the repsonses to answer back as an *APPROVED* device for the non approved one.

DUH

Next idea please.

Here's one - track down those that traffic in the pirated goods, and arrest them.
Quit treating customers as criminals.

Tracking "Pirate" goods (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14310097)

You can bet they will track "Pirate" goods... especially these so called DONGLES, the people who make them, and the evil people who use them to break the law!

It is bad to break the law, it is even worse to break "THEIR" laws!

Why? (1)

iainl (136759) | more than 8 years ago | (#14309561)

So this is to be a new, "Unified" display interface that is compatible with HDMI.

So, umm, HMDI with a differently-shaped plug, then?

Re:Why? (1)

iainl (136759) | more than 8 years ago | (#14309612)

And the answer, is... ...RTFA. The summary, as so very often, is completely misleading. This isn't a Unified DISPLAY Interface at all, but a Unform DRIVER Interface.

So it's a list of standard API calls that devices should support to communicate with the screen (among other things that you might want computing devices to communicate with. There are UDI specs for SCSI and a stack of other things too). Including (the one bit the summary did get right) having a uniform call to turn HDCP on or off.

Apple DRM (2, Interesting)

DJ_Tricks (664229) | more than 8 years ago | (#14309573)

If this is any thing like Apple's Fairplay DRM, all you will have to do is bend over one pin and it will be turned off. It's a little bit off extra work on the consumers part, but thats why Apple does it. They know the average consumer usally is lazy and as lathargic as a slug.

Riddle me this... (4, Insightful)

vertinox (846076) | more than 8 years ago | (#14309581)

How can the DRM software tell the difference between legitimate free software or a pirated work?

For the record (1)

lfd (101547) | more than 8 years ago | (#14309636)

The UDI pointed to by the project udi.org link concerns the "Uniform Driver
Interface," an attempt at specifying and implementing portable device drivers.
It bears absolutely no relationship to a "Unified Display Interface."

So much for editors checking the facts...

Re:Riddle me this... (1)

jfengel (409917) | more than 8 years ago | (#14309883)

The original works can be tagged in a variety of ways. The DRM software notices the tag and will only output through the certified devices. The DRM is built into the OS and therefore difficult to circumvent. Usually something about the file is tagged to the computer/devices that it's allowed to be played on.

Legitimate free music or video won't be tagged, and so the DRM software ignores it; it can be output on any device.

Note that this is mostly about protecting music and/or video, not software (except by a wide definition of "software"). The UDI governs output devices. There are other bits of the DRM (e.g. Palladium) that can be used to restrict the copying of software, and the same will apply: legitimate tagged copies will be allowed to run; illegally tagged copies will be forbidden; untagged software like free software will run.

You miss the point (1)

Schezar (249629) | more than 8 years ago | (#14309955)

"Legitimate free music or video won't be tagged, and so the DRM software ignores it; it can be output on any device."

Then all the pirates have to do is get the content (analogue hole as a last resort) and re-release it sans tag. If the "copy-protected" devices display anything without a tag, they are effectively useless.

The only workable method is to only display things with a VALID tag and lock everything else out: much harder to beat.

Re:You miss the point (1)

javachip (934245) | more than 8 years ago | (#14310101)

I think an inevitable tie-in will be copy "protection" and malware "protection". The "easiest" way to do this is to force all content to come from white-listed conglomerates via DRM style technologies. That would be a death-knell to open source software, indie music, and many other bottom-up forces of good in the Internet.

God, I hate where this is heading...

Another Standard (2, Insightful)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 8 years ago | (#14309596)

From Channel Register:The UDI initiative is being led by Intel and its new best friend, Apple, along with Samsung, LG, Nat Semi and Silicon Image. The likes of Nvidia, Foxconn, JAE Electronics, THine Electronics and FCI are also contributing to the spec.

However, they've got competition. The Video Electronics Standards Association (VESA) has already begun work on DisplayPort, its answer to DVI's successor standard. DisplayPort is set to support both internal and external monitor connections, and can be used with multimedia kit.

So, once more we have two groups vying to make their technology a "standard", which then leads to a protracted battle over whose "standard" should be adopted. And in the midst, some technology will likely come along to make the new "standard(s)" obsolescent.

Re:Another Standard:good! (1)

spectrokid (660550) | more than 8 years ago | (#14309675)

When you can choose between a region-encoded DVD player and one which isn't, you buy.....
When you can choose between one display standard which has been hacked and one which hasn't....
Competition is not just going to drive down prices, it is also going to lower the efforts done on DRM.

Dead before it starts (1)

InsaneProcessor (869563) | more than 8 years ago | (#14309606)

This looks to me like another standard the is dead before it is even thought of as a real standard. Does anyone remember I2O?

Wrong UDI Link (2, Informative)

sgauss (639539) | more than 8 years ago | (#14309608)

I think the link to UDI is to the Uniform Driver Interface folks. I think this UDI is different.

ignore this post (-1, Flamebait)

Mahou (873114) | more than 8 years ago | (#14309617)

i'd just like to say: fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck

thank you

What's the point? (3, Insightful)

fyonn (115426) | more than 8 years ago | (#14309619)

we already have HDMI. It supports digital video transfer, has loads of bandwidth and even supports the transport of audio along the same cable. It supports HDCP and it is the standard for High Definition TV. my TV has 2 HDMI ports already.

I know HDMI has a couple of issues, it currently doesn't hass 6 channel high definition audio along the cable, ie SACD and DVDA, but I believe that's due with v1.2 or 1.3, it's on the schedule anyway. The other issue I think is that it only supports video resolutions, ie 720p and 1080i/p. but I'm sure this could be easily revised in the next version to support other resolutions too.

make sure it has backwards compatibility and what's the problem? why do we need yet another connector when we have, and are already using a good one.

is there any other reason to introduce UDI?

dave

Re:What's the point? (1)

Apparition-X (617975) | more than 8 years ago | (#14309885)

"is there any other reason to introduce UDI?"

Yes. To force you to buy a new display device. New TV, new monitor for your computer(s), new video iPod/PSP/whatever. Just keep you buying. It is insulting and offensive to the consumer, but almost certainly true.

Another point: why not come up with a hardware standard that is sufficiently extensible that it supports future technologies? If consumer electronics is going to get onto the personal computer growth and revision curve, with new technologies every few months, it has to become more modular. I am not, and I suspect few others are, willing to upgrade everything every year or two because one component is upgraded. Just my opinion, but this is a critical weakness in the strategy of every major consumer electronics manufacturer at the moment.

HDMI doesn't thave enough bandwidth... (1)

YesIAmAScript (886271) | more than 8 years ago | (#14309903)

HDMI is a subset of DVI plus audio. In making the HDMI connector much smaller (and cheaper), they removed a lot of conductors, like DVI-A (analog) and the ability to have dual-link.

Without dual-link, HDMI is useless for computers in the future. The most expensive (and thus highest revenue and profit) panels already use dual-link DVI. Additionally, technically, 1080p cannot even be carried on HDMI or single-link DVI because the bandwidth is too high. However, companies are stretching the spec to make HDMI (and HDCP) work at 1080p. I don't think this stretching can be done to cover the larger (30") computer panels that are already in use.

DMR bad... (1, Funny)

coastin (780654) | more than 8 years ago | (#14309624)

My wife got me a new pair of glasses last week and now when I look at another woman's boobs they look pixilated. Damn DRM...

Re:DMR bad... (1)

stunt_penguin (906223) | more than 8 years ago | (#14309899)

DRM....Divorce Reason Monitors? Watch yourself bud.

DVD Jon will crack it! (3, Interesting)

VaderPi (680682) | more than 8 years ago | (#14309626)

Let them put the DRM in. It will just get cracked, and then we will use it like we want to anyway. It will be against the law, and the guy that cracks it will probably face a law suit. What we need to wait for is grandmother or a teacher getting sued for using the crack under what would normally be fair use. Then maybe the public notice how bad it is getting. Or maybe they will screw up the DRM and it will open the doors for display viruses. Screw pop up porn ads. How about in monitor ads. Little Billy will have a hard time why the naked women on the screen won't go away. In short, I fear that DRM must first get worse before it will get any better.

Good Luck to Them (1, Interesting)

Bullfish (858648) | more than 8 years ago | (#14309628)

Let me see, no Linux on Xbox, that's been done, no more p2p, p2p use exploding still, 500 forms of copy protection on CD's and DVD's broken, MS windows activation broken, etc, etc

Another thing to challenge and have broken.

Sooner or later somebody is going to wake up, charge a fair price, allow fair use, and make a profit without alienating their customers

On the other hand, how long did Rip Van Winkle sleep?

This is moot., as the consumer wont embrace it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14309643)

People wont buy stuff that has less capabilities then an item they already own.

By crippiling their own products they are ringing a death chime for their industry. People would rather buy something cheaper with more capability, then something expensive and limiting.

The companies that do embrace this "standard" are going to get TROUNCED by the companies that do not.

Batteries (4, Insightful)

faqmaster (172770) | more than 8 years ago | (#14309648)

The people-as-batteries scenario in The Matrix was just an accurate metaphor for what the "content industry" would like us all to become. Plugged up with inputs they alone control, we provide only the juice to keep the diabolical system going.

The more interesting news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14309696)

The more interesting news would be who is not part of this alliance. They are the people I want to buy stuff from.

wont stop anything. (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 8 years ago | (#14309702)

As I sit here at work ripping a DVD with an illegal copy of DVD decryptor I can tell you the the only people this will boter is the person at home that is not aboe to or want to dig a little deeper and find a way around it.

Why am I violently violating some poor movie companies copyright as I type? well I'm evil and want to watch the movie on my portable mpeg4 media device. I know, pure unadulterated evil.

I have long ago decided that I need to become skilled in breaking the law so that I can have my entertainment on my terms in my own way.

Well, exactly (1)

CdBee (742846) | more than 8 years ago | (#14309838)

I'm eagerly awaiting the arrival of my Mac - a G4 733 bought cheaply on eBay - but in the background behind my desk, you'll still find a small Windows PC (SFF Compaq desktop, probably) which will be dedicated to ripping DVDs to .mpg files which will then play cleanly on any system, no matter how DRM'd up it is.

Not that I seriously believe anyone will be able to stop me doing what I wish with my own PC, no matter how clever they think they are. I'm doing this because the ripper software I have runs on Windows.

What year are we living in? (1)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 8 years ago | (#14309707)

I noticed that this website is very outdated. For example:
UDI FAQ Last Updated September 7, 1999
Shouldn't they try and update the site a bit so at least you don't feel like you are reading 6 year old information?

Re:What year are we living in? (1)

wootest (694923) | more than 8 years ago | (#14310021)

It's the wrong interface - Uniform Driver Interface instead of the Universal Display Interface.

Re:What year are we living in? (1)

wootest (694923) | more than 8 years ago | (#14310035)

Er. Correction:

It's the wrong interface - Uniform Driver Interface instead of the Unified Display Interface.

What does drivers have to do with anything? (1)

Greger47 (516305) | more than 8 years ago | (#14309708)

Why talk about something called Unified Display Interface and then link to the site www.projectudi.org [projectudi.org] which concerns itself about the Uniform Driver Interface?!?. Slashdot editors at its best I guess...

Not that the Uniform Driver Interface is that great idea either, it's some kind of let's make some cozy wrapper that lets hardware manufacturers cross platform binary only drivers.

And what about Unified Display Interface? The only thing I can find about it is the sensationalist blurb on The Register. Have they just invented a new name for the new DisplayPort standard from VESA maby?

/greger

Re:What does drivers have to do with anything? (1)

Svenne (117693) | more than 8 years ago | (#14309974)

Nope, it a competitor to the DisplayPort.

The solution is simple (1)

FZer0 (585622) | more than 8 years ago | (#14309720)

Do you really think you will need more graphical processing power then you do today? In fact, do you think you really need all the graphical power you had yesterday?

Just don't buy it. Ignore it. Or, if you really want to, wait a little then buy the most powerful card and the best monitor you can, then ignore UDI.

I'm a non-gamer, but I think you can do it if you want to. :-)

Re:The solution is simple (1)

limabone (174795) | more than 8 years ago | (#14309811)

This rarely works unless it proves to be a problem for Jane & Joe Sixpack. For every 1 person who votes with their wallet on products that they don't agree with, there are 10,000 who don't care.

If the DRM doesn't cause any hindrance to their ability to use the product then most people will not care (the CEO of Sony was right when he basically said no one gives a shit about DRM, except their DRM was not invisble to the consumer).

Re:The solution is simple (1)

FZer0 (585622) | more than 8 years ago | (#14309868)

I guess you're right, which is a pity. :-/

All that's left for us is hope that the DRM restrictions get the content producers (the real ones, the artists) so pissed off they simply drop out of the loop and go indie. Which is really not so difficult to happen, IMHO.

but where's the mythbusters interview!? (0, Offtopic)

TheCreeep (794716) | more than 8 years ago | (#14309722)

I tried asking this question on another article's thread (namely the polar bears drowning thingy) and some yahoo modded me -1 Overrated. OVERRATED!?! not even offtopic!
Now I want some answers, and I'm not the only one.
We will storm the servers, make our voices heard!!

Who's with me??
erm... guys?
guys...?

Bad Link???? (1)

spectrokid (660550) | more than 8 years ago | (#14309756)

The link is to something called the Uniform driver interface, some kind of attempt to make OS-neutral drivers. Is this the same thing??

...I remember when... (2)

zen611 (903428) | more than 8 years ago | (#14309775)

*sigh* I remember when industry standards were a good thing...

So? (1)

Pig Hogger (10379) | more than 8 years ago | (#14309782)

Software and hardware DRM-bypassing solutions will be readily available from outside the US.

So it is not really a problem.

Direct attack at free software and open hardware (1)

Theovon (109752) | more than 8 years ago | (#14309788)

If you can't buy a monitor with analog or DVI, then open-standards hardware projects (like the Open Graphics Project [opengraphics.org] ) will be shut out. This isn't just about protecting IP rights. This is a direct attack at Free Software in general.

Defeat THIS piracy technique! (5, Interesting)

ajs318 (655362) | more than 8 years ago | (#14309791)

How about replacing the cathode ray tube in one of these TV sets with a dummy one?

From the current flowing in the scan coils, we can determine where the electron beam is on the screen {though to generate a standard timing signal, we really only care about when it jumps to the left hand side or the top}. From the three grid drives, we can get the levels of red, green and blue light emitted by the nearest pixel.

Apply some rudimentary signal conditioning which, if you could get the circuitry to fit on an A6 size piece of breadboard, you really would not be trying at all; and you have a set of signals suitable for feeding into any old-fashioned SCART socket on any old-fashioned TV set or DVD+RW recorder.

There is no way to protect any kind of content against the "dummy CRT" attack -- and once it has been successfully applied, the content is now unprotected for all time

Re:Defeat THIS piracy technique! (3, Interesting)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 8 years ago | (#14309920)

It's easier than that.

This past week I was able to play with a Canon XL1HD camera. and with a small amount of setup I recorded a "protected" Live PPV content off our Calbe system digital box with a Hd projector this camera and a $9.95 35MM slide to Video converter box I had laying around at home.

The resulting copy looked only slightly worse than the origional signal on the Cable TV. if viewed on a PC or a sane sized HD television it was highly acceptable. It only looked muddy whe shown on the projector at it's normal 10' size.

So it's already broken. I can take what was recorded and compress lightly and have something that is better than most illegal copies of shows or movies on the net.

it was mostly done as a proof example to the Exec's here that were touting how secure the content is.

Re:Defeat THIS piracy technique! (3, Interesting)

Foobar of Borg (690622) | more than 8 years ago | (#14310064)

You know what this means, don't you? It means that university engineering schools are simply pirate training academies. All those universities are getting rich off of training pirates! I mean, it's not like engineers produce anything! Was Britney Spears an engineer? Was Ben Afleck? No, of course not! Then why do these "universities" think that they are training anyone of any worth? All they are doing is producing pirates who are destroying the financial standing of the RIAA and MPAA, whose products are as important as the air we breathe and the food we eat. Remember, when you rip a CD or DVD, you are aiding the terrorists and killing small adorable puppies.

That's only half the battle (3, Insightful)

dstone (191334) | more than 8 years ago | (#14310091)

the content is now unprotected for all time

Sort of. This is an excellent, clever way to copy the content. However, consider that the copy you have captured may still be watermarked or otherwise uniquely identifiable.

From the perspectives of piracy-detection and legal-prosecution, you may still be on dangerous ground: copies made as you suggest may be tracable and still cause grief for you or anyone posessing them, depending on how the courts interpret "fair-use" that week. I hope using the technique you suggest for personal backup purposes would be legitimate, but you've clearly circumvented a digital rights mechanism (and possibly left evidence in the copy) and I am not a lawyer.

Piracy controls on my monitor? (1)

cstec (521534) | more than 8 years ago | (#14309796)

That was easy. Not interested...

Look to China (5, Interesting)

DumbSwede (521261) | more than 8 years ago | (#14309803)

Having been to mainland China recently I beginning to think they have things right in their economic model which is basically capitalism for things that are, well, capital. And communism for all things that are IP. With 25 years of 10% growth they are doing something right. So much so I felt compelled to write an essay on this only two days back (you can never go wrong pre writing stuff on IP or P2P for Slashdot).

Follow
Overhauling Intellectual Property Laws --or-- Balancing Capitalism and Communism [slashdot.org]
for my economic opus and ode to media bashing.

Antipiracy compatible... (1)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 8 years ago | (#14309832)

And flexibility incompatible...

I wonder if they even got the definition of piracy [uncyclopedia.org] right... ;-)

RE: Oh... gosh! (0)

fshalor (133678) | more than 8 years ago | (#14309861)

Can we *PLEASE* have our hardware back!!!

20 minutes into the future (1)

Matey-O (518004) | more than 8 years ago | (#14309866)

You guys aren't thinking progressively enough...Max Headroom had it right.

They don't want to just control copying, next they'll want to remove your TV's OFF switch!

So What Does this Mean for "old monitors"... (2, Interesting)

eno2001 (527078) | more than 8 years ago | (#14309913)

...that people bought yesterday? There's going to be an uprising if people can't watch current content on their monitors due to DRM. The industry should NOT be allowed to just make you HAVE to buy new hardware simply to access current content. That SHOULD be illegal if we had sane regulations that favored the consumer.

The problem (1)

RaNdOm OuTpUt (928053) | more than 8 years ago | (#14309932)

The problem with DRM is that it has to be trademarked (well, it doesn't HAVE to be, but they will). Because anybody who wants to can go to the USPTO and look at the trademark information, INCLUDING HOW THE PRODUCT LOOKS, and then break the DRM. Of course, not everybody will do this, but if they don't they probably weren't trying to pirate, but were just copying a CD for a friend, which most people see as OK.

New /. design to break non-IE browsers with popups (1)

iamacat (583406) | more than 8 years ago | (#14309970)

How can we complain about known evil companies if slashdot resorts to unclosable popups that obscure the content? Screenshot in Safari [netgate.net]

Doesn't matter (2, Interesting)

Ryan Amos (16972) | more than 8 years ago | (#14310030)

Hardware-based DRM has proven time and time again to be totally ineffective at stopping anyone from doing anything. By nature of being hardware based, it can't change. Because it can't change, it's a stationary target for hackers and someone *will* find a way around it in a matter of months.

It can be legislated to hell and back and it still won't make a bit of difference. I guarantee you a lot of countries have bigger problems than enforcing American patents/copyrights and have no interest in complying with any anti-circumvention laws either. Someone will crack it, the crack will get out into the wild, and it'll be like the DRM never existed.

Let them waste their money developing expensive DRM schemes that a 17 year old in Romania will break 6 months after it's released. The laws don't exist to prosecute this kind of thing in many countries, nor should they. MPAA/RIAA tired of losing money? Stop producing crap and people will buy it. But look at their members' profit/loss sheets recently, what they say in public is in polar opposite to what they tell their shareholders...

A few observations (1)

bebing (624220) | more than 8 years ago | (#14310102)

For the following, piracy means copyright infringement not covered by fair use, more specifically black market type stuff.

1. If you can watch or hear something it is possible to pirate it.

2. If it can be pirated it will be pirated. Well, if it's profitable to be pirated that is, i.e., the closer the prices are between legit and pirated copies the less profitable pirating is.

3. If 1 and 2 are true, then piracy will never be stopped.

4. The producer or the consumer or a combination of the two will have to absorb the loss. Sources of compensation can include lawsuits against pirates.

I think it should end there.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>