Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Hardware and Software => Topic started by: Mini D on February 12, 2007, 12:00:48 PM
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Vista breaks some very high end multi-media software. And MS did it intentionally in order to support DRM. Or more pointedly, they could not figure out how to make some things work, so they abandoned the API's used by those very high end packages.
You're going to have to qualify this skuzzy. This statement gives the impression that you are trying to villify MS for the sake of it rather than actually addressing what is and isn't "broken" and exactly why it was done this way.
I've seen several statements about what DRM is going to do and how bad everything has gotten since mid version9 of Media player. I'm wondering exactly what's going on here as I've not had a problem with media player 11 playing any MP3 I've thrown at it.
Is this an attempt to put tighter reign on proprietary compression such as .mp4 and .dvx? Is this because of licensing issues with the people that own the rights to the compression? Is this the same with the HD stuff?
Since you're so in the know, could you please provide a little more information and a little less ranting?
-
MS pulled the mechanism to allow ASIO drivers to work. ASIO is no longer supported in Vista. ASIO is used by virtually all high end audio packages for editing.
You can make ASIO work, but you have to do it via using the Vista upgrade, and update an existing XP installation which already has all the ASIO drivers installed.
MS pulled ASIO as they had no way to insure DRM would be supported.
DirectX plug-in filters no longer work due to MS pulling the DX Sound API and folding it all into the normal Windows sound API, which does not support all the features of the DX Sound API.
THE DX Sound API has been canned as MS could not get DRM support in it either.
MP3's should not be too much trouble. The DRM issues will hit you hard with any HD content (audio or video).
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
MS pulled ASIO as they had no way to insure DRM would be supported.
So... ASIO would be a means to bypass DRM?
-
ASIO was not created at MS. It was actually created by the many high end audio editing software companies. It came about as there was a desparate need for a low latency, non-buffered, synchronous, sound API for Windows.
When you edit sound, unlike video, you only have a time cue to work with. There is no accurate visual indicator, like video, to tell if you are in sync or not with the other tracks.
The best side effect of ASIO was it was the first API which allowed 96Khz sampled music to play accurately on a reasonably fast system. It also allowed low overhead for the decoding of Dolby tracks in movies and for that audio to be played very precisely with the video content.
What happens without ASIO, is those packages revert to lower sample rates/slower streams in order to make up for the longer delays in audio playback.
Compromises in the video and audio will be done in order to keep it synchronized. As all versions of Windows sound API's treat audio as asynchronous events, another method to provide a synchronous event was/is needed. These are the original reasons ASIO came to exist. To solve those problems.
So, MS could never add DRM, and so they figured out how to prevent ASIO from being added to Vista. What they did not know, was that most sound card companies had been using ASIO to play all the audio in Windows for some time now. It simply worked better than the sound system in Windows. With lower overhead, and faster throughputs, audio suddenly became smoother, with less audio being dropped in games, for example.
So back to your original question. DRM, for audio, would only come into play for recording. And it would only effect recording through the digital inputs of the audio card. And in that specific instance, DRM can be by-passed for audio using ASIO.
Now, piracy of audio never made use of ASIO in the past. And that is because you can simply copy the data from a CD, without having to resort to playing and recording it on your computer.
But, with the advent of HD content. You will no longer be able to copy that data from the media to your hard drive. And as it is encrypted, you simply cannot extract the audio trackes from the media like you can from a normal DVD. So, if you want to copy the audio, you have to play it back and record it. ASIO would have allowed that to happen.
This is what I have been stressing about DRM. It only effects HD content, directly. Indirectly, everything in your computer has to pass through that additional layer of software. Which, of course, slows down everything to some degree.
-
Back to my question: ASIO would allow bypassing of DRM? From what you've said, it appears it would.
One of the main "gotchas" towards introducing licensed products to a computer seemed to be the inability to keep it from being reproduced. DRM seems to be a way to prevent that. I'm failing to see how it intrudes on your rights. I would also imagine that any high-end video editing software you have will most likely release something that "fixes them" on vista.
I've not seen you address anything about Vista being a more secure platform for developers. It seems, to me, that this is it's main selling point. Does Vista offer some means for stopping the distribution of pirated software?
-
So back to your original question. DRM, for audio, would only come into play for recording. And it would only effect recording through the digital inputs of the audio card. And in that specific instance, DRM can be by-passed for audio using ASIO.
DRM will prevent you from making a copy of your legally purchased HD content, if the manufacturer of said content does not want you to make a copy. You will not know you cannot make a backup, until it is too late.
How about not being able to view HD content you purchase on your computer. I call that pretty intrusive. If Vista determines you are attempting to view or listen to HD content, but any part of your computer does not have the HDCP hardware in the chain (monitor, video card, sound card...), then Vista will roll you back to lesser quality output.
Tell me you would not be a little pissed off when that happens to you.
DRM will not prevent piracy. Pirates simply will use another OS to make thier copies. DRM just restricts the normal consumer from doing perfectly legal things with thier software/content.
I have not said anything about the security as it really does not mean much. Any developer depending on the local operating system to provide the security for thier livelihood is just foolish.
Most developers lack the discipline to work in a truly secure environment, so security has to be done in the least intrusive manner possible or you end up with a bunch of frustrated programmers, which is very counter-productive.
Vista is still inherently insecure, as will be any MS OS. It is the nature of the design which makes it inherently insecure. Sure, you can slap bandaids on top of the leaks and MS will continue to do that. Even MS has stated Windows was never designed with security in mind. MS is very careful about how its marketing addresses security. "More secure" does not imply it is secure.
And developers would also strongly dislike the performance lost with this OS. The longer the compile times, the less productive you are. Vista assures about a 30% longer compile time for most projects.
Developers would also hate to have to purchase more hardware just to come up slightly slower in compile times. It is a waste of money, for virtually no benefit.
And to answer the question about piracy. No, Vista will not stop piracy at all. It just makes life more difficult for the end user, as it pertains to any type of HD content. You can still duplicate CD's to your hearts contents.
-
I fail to see how making "backups" of your HD content matters one bit. This has long been an excuse for other actions rather than a necessity.
As for what will and won't play HD content, you seem to go into vague mode again. What exactly do you mean by "doesn't have the HDCP content in the chain". Is HDCP a HD certified product? Is licensing a requirement for this?
Next question: Will the availability of copy protection encourage or discourage development?
-
Originally posted by Mini D
I fail to see how making "backups" of your HD content matters one bit. This has long been an excuse for other actions rather than a necessity.
As for what will and won't play HD content, you seem to go into vague mode again. What exactly do you mean by "doesn't have the HDCP content in the chain". Is HDCP a HD certified product? Is licensing a requirement for this?
Next question: Will the availability of copy protection encourage or discourage development?
Copy protection already has discouraged both development and consumer spending through severe compatability problems on consumer hardware and it will only get worse. Why do you think EMI considers getting rid of DRM? Because the system works? :rolleyes:
As for the rest of the pseudotechnical whine if you don't know what hdcp chain is or understand why people need backups maybe you're in the wrong discussion.
-
Originally posted by Mini D What exactly do you mean by "doesn't have the HDCP content in the chain". Is HDCP a HD certified product? Is licensing a requirement for this?[/B]
I've posted it before and it's a long read, but it will (possibly) answer most of the questions you have.
Originally posted by Mini D I fail to see how making "backups" of your HD content matters one bit.[/B]
Yea, why should that matter to general OS functionality? Read on...
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html
-
Originally posted by Mini D
I fail to see how making "backups" of your HD content matters one bit. This has long been an excuse for other actions rather than a necessity.
As for what will and won't play HD content, you seem to go into vague mode again. What exactly do you mean by "doesn't have the HDCP content in the chain". Is HDCP a HD certified product? Is licensing a requirement for this?
Next question: Will the availability of copy protection encourage or discourage development?
I am not trying to be vague. I presume people know about HDCP (High Definition Copy Protection) and DRM (Digital Rights Management). As you work for a company who is instrumental in HDCP, I really did assume you knew about it. If you want to learn about HDCP, then here ya go. (http://www.digital-cp.com/)
I have a rather large DVD library. My practice is to take the original DVD, and make a backup for use. That way if the disc gets damaged, for whatever reason, I can make another one.
After the original is 3 years old, I make a copy of it, and throw away the original. This helps to prevent my movies from going bad over time.
I make no copies of anything for anyone else. This is all for my own private use. I also do a lot of other things for my own personal use. Such as creating a Dolby Digital sound track for my original Star Wars movie I moved from Laser Disc.
---
Your question about copy protection is vague and covers a lot of territory. Care to refine that a bit? Specifically, when you ask about encouraging or discouraing development, the developement of what would be pertinent.
-
So much for HDCP. A hacker has finally found the universal AACS key to allow the decrypting of any HD or BluRay DVD movie, and has published the information.
Now the pirates can pirate all day long, while the legitimate users are still screwed using Vista.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
So much for HDCP. A hacker has finally found the universal AACS key to allow the decrypting of any HD or BluRay DVD movie, and has published the information.
Now the pirates can pirate all day long, while the legitimate users are still screwed using Vista.
I'm not sure if thats a good or a bad thing.
I'm being serious.
Bronk
-
Well, it just proves the futility of trying to protect digital content via encryption.
I, for one, would like to see it all fail. I am a videophile and audiophile. I love my toys and will pay a lot of money for them. However, I refuse to buy one HD or BluRay disc, nor player, simply due to the fact I cannot make a backup copy of the media.
While I will not support piracy by obtaining pirated content, I will be rooting for them to just bust this stuff all to heck and back. I would rather see HD content pulled from the shelves than the current implementation being done.
I wish people had more guts to walk away from this type of technology. Technology which hampers the end user is not good and should never be considered an option. This is not the way to stop piracy. It only makes it worse.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
I am not trying to be vague. I presume people know about HDCP (High Definition Copy Protection) and DRM (Digital Rights Management). As you work for a company who is instrumental in HDCP, I really did assume you knew about it. If you want to learn about HDCP, then here ya go. (http://www.digital-cp.com/)
I build em, I don't design em.
I have a rather large DVD library. My practice is to take the original DVD, and make a backup for use. That way if the disc gets damaged, for whatever reason, I can make another one.
You don't have to explain your actions as they're not what I question. You do realize that 99% of the rest of the PC world exploits this... right?
I have a large DvD collection too. I guess I'm missing how losing a DvD would impact you to any degree other than having to fork out another $10 for it. The value of a restored disk makes the DvD worthless... so value retention isn't there. What I really don't understand is why you think you're entitled to a backup of a product you bought.
I also chuckle at the last MS dig you got in there. It really is that you hate them more than you evaluate them. I do think Bronk gets things, though.
For whomever was saying anything discourages development... HAHAHAHAHAHA! Anything new means new programs and new development. It means new buisness opportunities. If anything, developers will benifit from this. Hardware manufacturers will have to do a dance, but I guess I'm not to sympathetic to the plight of the two video card manufacturers on the market or the one non-mobo sound card company developing things. Something in the past has already discouraged development in those areas... I suppose it was something else Microsoft did.
The driver performance and support is going to be a pain in the ass. It always has been. In a year or two it won't be anywhere near as problematic. The people buying the OS this year will be the ones paying the price and a big thanks to them.
-
Oh good lord, get over yourself. You have yet to address anything I have answered with anything other than your own opinion. So what makes your opinion so much better than anyone else's?
You make the claim I thing I am 'entitiled' to make a backup. Interesting choice of words. You ever seen a DVD go out of production? I have a couple of copies which are out of production. If they go bad, there are no replacements for them.
Nowhere in the license agreement for that content does it say I may not make a copy for my own use, quite the opposite actually. If you do not like to make copies of your collection, that is your choice. There is nothing illegal or unethical about making a copy of software you own, for your own use.
If you, or anyone else, wants to take thier DVD media and spread peanut butter on them, I could care less. Do I take a shot at MS? You bet. When they deserve it, I will take a shot at them. If you do not wish to, then don't. But while you're at it, you can stop taking cheap shots at me as well.
Tell me how doing what they have done in Vista is going to stop pirating. I really would like to hear that answer. Because the AACS has been broken now, which will allow anyone to make a copy of thier HD content using any other OS. So, the only thing I see Vista doing is preventing legitimate users from making thier own backups of thier own media.
Last time I checked into copyright law, it was still legal to do that. If those laws have changed, please enlighten me.
Accusing me of taking cheap shots while you are doing it in the same post is rather hypocritical. I have answered all your questions, with facts, about the deficiencies of the current implementation of Vista. And ther are more. Spend a day or two at MS's own TechNet and you will see many more.
I have made every attempt to be clear about whether or not it is my opinion, or a fact. If I have erred in that, then I will be happy to correct it. If I have made an error in any of my claims about Vista, please let me know. I endeavor to be accurate. it is important.
You have yet to offer anything substantial, other than your own cheap shots. By the way, we are a developer, and you will not find Vista anywhere close to a production computer system for a very long time. So that is one developers opinion. There is nothing in Vista which will help us do anything better or faster. Quite the opposite acutally. It would only slow us down.
You may see this as simple bashing of MS, but it is not that at all. It is an attempt to provide more information about Vista, rather than the marketing spiel MS spews forth. If you have something to add, please do so.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
You make the claim I thing I am 'entitiled' to make a backup. Interesting choice of words. You ever seen a DVD go out of production? I have a couple of copies which are out of production. If they go bad, there are no replacements for them.
So?Nowhere in the license agreement for that content does it say I may not make a copy for my own use, quite the opposite actually. If you do not like to make copies of your collection, that is your choice. There is nothing illegal or unethical about making a copy of software you own, for your own use.
[/b]Once again... you are talking about yourself and refusing to acknowledge that this is the single largest exploited aspect of piracy these days.If you, or anyone else, wants to take thier DVD media and spread peanut butter on them, I could care less. Do I take a shot at MS? You bet. When they deserve it, I will take a shot at them. If you do not wish to, then don't. But while you're at it, you can stop taking cheap shots at me as well.
[/b]This is obviously a touchy subject with you and sheds alot of light on your other comments.
Surely you can see how this is one of the most exploited features on a PC these days. Surely you can see that the advent of Netflix combined with this feature means that backups are more than just backups. Surely you can see that there was going to be some kind of attempt to address this. I mean... you're not that obtuse are you?
Tell me how doing what they have done in Vista is going to stop pirating. I really would like to hear that answer. Because the AACS has been broken now, which will allow anyone to make a copy of thier HD content using any other OS. So, the only thing I see Vista doing is preventing legitimate users from making thier own backups of thier own media.
[/b]Stop or slow? Make it more difficult and it will happen less. Right now, anyone can plug in a computer and start downloading it as is demonstrated by the shear number of people doing it. I'm not talking about the numbers that the RIAA is displaying to congress... I'm just talking about what you can find easily on the internet with minimal effort. There is little to nothing that cannot be downloaded.
You're basically arguing that there's no way to control the speed limit of cars, so they shouldn't. Say that one loud enough and see what happens.
Last time I checked into copyright law, it was still legal to do that. If those laws have changed, please enlighten me.
Show me where I said you were doing anything illegal. I still maintain that you are confusing what is legal with what someone is required to allow you to do. There's no law saying that Microsoft has to support your "backup" requirements. It should be apparent to you that there are other motivating factors that drove this decision and if "backups" were their only concern we wouldn't have seen anything done here. You know this... right?
Accusing me of taking cheap shots while you are doing it in the same post is rather hypocritical. I have answered all your questions, with facts, about the deficiencies of the current implementation of Vista. And ther are more. Spend a day or two at MS's own TechNet and you will see many more.
You have not answered with facts skuzzy. You have answered with rhetoric. It may be the other side of the fence rhetoric, but it is still rhetoric.
Vista will mess with HD playback until hardware vendors get with the MS program... or MS will simply have to adjust their program because there are other OSs that will do the job.
I have made every attempt to be clear about whether or not it is my opinion, or a fact. If I have erred in that, then I will be happy to correct it. If I have made an error in any of my claims about Vista, please let me know. I endeavor to be accurate. it is important.
You're frothing at the mouth now... time to get over yourself too.You have yet to offer anything substantial, other than your own cheap shots. By the way, we are a developer, and you will not find Vista anywhere close to a production computer system for a very long time. So that is one developers opinion. There is nothing in Vista which will help us do anything better or faster. Quite the opposite acutally. It would only slow us down.
I'm sure it will skuzzy, afterall, you say so. Or... is this another fact? What do you think will happen "in a very long time" that will change things?
You may see this as simple bashing of MS, but it is not that at all. It is an attempt to provide more information about Vista, rather than the marketing spiel MS spews forth. If you have something to add, please do so.
I do not see this as a simple bashing of MS, skuzzy. Once again, I will not be loading vista. I see this as over-hyped knee-jerk reaction to something that will not be anywhere near the impact you are citing or any of the doom-n-gloom cites are predicting.
I'm sorry some of your software won't work under vista. It seems you still have other options. I'd be willing to bet that eventually it will work under vista and you'll forget you ever said these things because, well, you actually aren't the end-all-be-all of OS development.
So... pretend that Win2k is the bestest thing since sliced bread and you'll never need anything else... ever. I'm thinking there will be much better software in the next 5 years that will blow the current stuff away.
This whole thing just reminds me so much of forcing people to 32 bit development that it makes me laugh. Seeing the same people say the same thing over and over for every single release of anything makes me laugh just as much. Watching people insist that something won't be good and they know more than the developers about it is just about as funny.
I'm sure that Vista is not all that Microsoft is presenting it to be. That would be called marketing. I'm pretty sure you could say the same thing about AH and be accurate to some degree. In the end, it all works itself out. If it doesn't... there's always apple.
-
How about answering this simple question:
How do you prevent DvDs, CDs and such from being freely distributed over the internet?
-
Shouldn't we also criminalize the lending of DVDs, CDs, textbooks, novels, newspapers or magazines to friends and familiy members? Why would anyone think that either can be "prevented?"
-
Originally posted by Mini D
How about answering this simple question:
How do you prevent DvDs, CDs and such from being freely distributed over the internet?
Oh, I see, I should go ahead and asnwer your questions, while you ignore mine. When you are ready to have a conversation, let me know.
But you probably will just take more cheap shots as that is all you seem capable of doing. nevermind addressing the differences between Vista and XP.
Oh, there is one thing you ar off on in your diatribe. I will never have a need to install Vista on any computer I own. The design considerations MS has made which has broken mauch of my software are not bugs.
Are you just afraid to learn the truth? You do not have to take my word on any of this. No one does. Go to TechNet and read about it yourself. You obviously have not done that or you would not be spewing the rhetoric you are.
I have no time for anyone who wishes to remain ignorant on the topic of the differences between XP and Vista. Or how it could/can impact what you want to do with your computer.
I spend a lot of time going over tech articles all the time and do my best to distill them down to something most people can understand. I do not have to do this at all. You are taking this to a personal level and I do not appreciate it. It is not germaine to the discussion.
So, may I suggest, either becoming part of the discussion, or just leave this thread and create your own.
--
As to this question you are asking. There is a very simple solution and it will stop 100% of the piracy over the Internet. I could even gaurantee it. That is how effective it would be.
But I will not elaborate on it, as there is no point in it, Piracy of HD content is already happening. Vista will not do one thing to slow down people who will pirate, as pirates do not need to use Vista. Vista hurts legitimate users.
DRM and HDCP have real costs associated with those technologies. Consumers are paying for that. Paying for technologies which will do nothing to ward off piracy is a waste or time and money.
In the end the consumer pays more for everything related to the video and audio stream, even if they do not use and HD content, they will pay for the right to do so.
And now that they are paying for the right to view or listen to it, they will be blocked from making any backups of it. They wil not be able to protect thier investment. I really could care less if you want to protect your investment or not. Some people wash and wax thier car, and some do not, but they have a choice to do so.
It seems the only people not being hurt are the pirates. Here is something for you to chew on. You make the claim I will back off of everything I am saying about Vista in the future. I doubt I will, as this is about technologies, and my stance will only change when MS changes how they are doing things in Vista.
Let me predict this. Piracy will be higher than ever as it pertains to HD content. I am pretty confident in that opinion. But if you really want to just discuss piracy, how about moving it to another thread?
-
Originally posted by Mini D
You do realize that 99% of the rest of the PC world exploits this... right?
That's a silly statement. Even the bleakest report from the RIAA put the percentage closer to 25%. DRM in it's current state does nothing to prevent a committed person who wants to steal...and it never will. Yet we still see prolific intrusive DRM that does nothing to prevent priacy, and yet frustrates the remainder of us. At best, DRM stops the casual pirate....at worst DRM gives corporations total control over something YOU purchased. What if the print media were like that? What if DRM existed in every day life...so when you went to a restaurant they watched to make sure you didn't share a meatball with your wife, because only you were licensed the meatball...not her. :)
Companies like Stardock understand that DRM only hurts Joe user, and does nothing to stop the pirate.... I've purposefully not bought a game because it shipped with starforce protection...if you've ever had issues with starforce...you'd lose some of your fuzzy feelings about DRM.
It's all about the almighty dollar...and in the end...I wonder if the corporations are losing more money through piracy...or through their attempts to stop piracy.
-
Ok, MiniD, I did not move your last post over as it had been edited out due to a violation of Rule #4. If you want to discuss piracy, then let's keep it civil.
-
Follow-up to Republic's comment: for those that don't know, Boycott Starforce (http://www.glop.org/starforce/list.php)
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
But you probably will just take more cheap shots as that is all you seem capable of doing. nevermind addressing the differences between Vista and XP.
I have no time for anyone who wishes to remain ignorant on the topic of the differences between XP and Vista. Or how it could/can impact what you want to do with your computer.
/quote]doublestandardAs to this question you are asking. There is a very simple solution and it will stop 100% of the piracy over the Internet. I could even gaurantee it. That is how effective it would be.
But I will not elaborate on it, as there is no point in it, Piracy of HD content is already happening. Vista will not do one thing to slow down people who will pirate, as pirates do not need to use Vista. Vista hurts legitimate users.
LOL! elaborate or don't bring it up. Jeez man.
DRM and HDCP have real costs associated with those technologies. Consumers are paying for that. Paying for technologies which will do nothing to ward off piracy is a waste or time and money.
Do nothing to ward off piracy? Do "nothing" to ward off piracy? You're confusing not doing enough with doing nothing.
And now that they are paying for the right to view or listen to it, they will be blocked from making any backups of it. They wil not be able to protect thier investment. I really could care less if you want to protect your investment or not. Some people wash and wax thier car, and some do not, but they have a choice to do so.
Maybe you could just wax your DvDs or do something to protect their well being better? Putting a coat of wax on a car does not mean you'll have a new car after you total it in an accident. You're making up absolutely new "rules" for these products because it's something you've gotten used to. This was allowed in the past because there was no way to really prevent it. It really seems they're just addressing this now. Digital content seems to be the only thing that falls into this "I am entitled to back it up" belief system. It is counter to every other product offered in every other market.
It seems the only people not being hurt are the pirates. Here is something for you to chew on. You make the claim I will back off of everything I am saying about Vista in the future. I doubt I will, as this is about technologies, and my stance will only change when MS changes how they are doing things in Vista.
Let me predict this. Piracy will be higher than ever as it pertains to HD content. I am pretty confident in that opinion. But if you really want to just discuss piracy, how about moving it to another thread?
Piracy will be higher than ever? What does that mean?
I guarantee there will be piracy. I guarantee the average consumer will be able to view HD content. I guarantee that the average user will have a difficult time pirating things.
I know many people that have extensive netflix generated DvD collections. I can fully understand companies taking steps to prevent this. This is not an attack on the community, it is a response to it. HD content simply allows measures to be put in place as the technology is being developed rather than the result we've already seen from DvDs and CDs where essentially nothing can be done.
As far as the implimentation goes, there's definately going to be problems. The system is definately something to avoid until these are worked out. But I get the impression that alot of the things people are saying "won't be possible" will be possible. At that time, they'll just shut up and move on to the next new thing that they know more about than anyone else and pretend they forsee something else.
Look forward more. Think more. Stop being obtuse.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
For whomever was saying anything discourages development... HAHAHAHAHAHA! Anything new means new programs and new development. It means new buisness opportunities. If anything, developers will benifit from this. Hardware manufacturers will have to do a dance, but I guess I'm not to sympathetic to the plight of the two video card manufacturers on the market or the one non-mobo sound card company developing things. Something in the past has already discouraged development in those areas... I suppose it was something else Microsoft did.
Sales are going down on DRM content. I'm sure that encourages content providers to produce more. :aok
Putting a coat of wax on a car does not mean you'll have a new car after you total it in an accident.
That's because you own the car and can do whatever you want with it, including copy it at will. With media, you're licensed to use the media you never get to own it. That means that if one buys a right to use a media, it has _nothing_ to do with the physical means of delivering it. But the problem is the media giants want to have their cake and eat it too. They say you don't own your physical media - but they refuse to replace the broken ones for a copy fee either. It's completely illogical licensing wise and legalized robbery after the fact.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Follow-up to Republic's comment: for those that don't know, Boycott Starforce (http://www.glop.org/starforce/list.php)
Starforce is actually an interesting argument against most of what skuzzy has claimed.
Using starforce involves additional development costs, impacts development time, possibly impacts game performance, yet it's still being adopted by developers. Why is that?
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
Sales are going down on DRM content. I'm sure that encourages content providers to produce more. :aok
What DRM content are you reffering to? Talk about vague.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
What DRM content are you reffering to? Talk about vague.
Vague? ROFL! You must be working for MPAA or RIAA. That's just surreal.
http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?RSS&newsID=17184
http://consumer.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTI4MywxLCxoY29uc3VtZXI=
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2007-02-09-emi-unprotected-music_x.htm?POE=TECISVA
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Starforce is actually an interesting argument against most of what skuzzy has claimed.
Using starforce involves additional development costs, impacts development time, possibly impacts game performance, yet it's still being adopted by developers. Why is that?
It was dumped by Ubisoft when they realized it was a load of crap. The only reason it's being adopted by developers is MARKETING AND FALSE PROMISES. Christ.
On a related note I recently had to reinstall my computer after the starforce remover tool had corrupted the windows installation. Took the SF through a game demo, it installs without warning and silent.
I reinstalled and downloaded a no-dvd patch for my SHIII at the same time. So yes, it seems to be effective. :rolleyes: :lol
SHIII _is_ the first and the last SF title I'll ever make the mistake to buy tho.
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
It was dumped by Ubisoft when they realized it was a load of crap. The only reason it's being adopted by developers is MARKETING AND FALSE PROMISES. Christ.
Hrm... kinda like Vista DRM, eh?
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
On a related note I recently had to reinstall my computer after the starforce remover tool had corrupted the windows installation. Took the SF through a game demo, it installs without warning and silent.
Hrm.. ALSO kinda like Vista DRM, eh?
Vista = Starforce! Boycott Vista!
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
It was dumped by Ubisoft when they realized it was a load of crap. The only reason it's being adopted by developers is MARKETING AND FALSE PROMISES. Christ.
I've never met a more obtuse group in my life.
WHY DID THEY ADOPT IT!?! WHAT WAS THE MARKETING THAT MADE THEM ADOPT IT!?! WHAT MARKETING MADE THEM CHOSE (not be forced) TO BUY AN ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE AND ADD DESIGN OVERHEAD TO THEIR PRODUCT!?!
PS... none of those links show a slow in DRM sales.
-
MiniD, you should know by now the one thing that sells anything: bullsh**.
The reason people are buying into Vista is bullsh**. Even some reviewers were getting annoyed at the anal smoke insertion MS reps were giving them.
Starforce was only adopted because they told lies to interest folks "Use our stuff or you'll lose ALL your money!!! GASP!"
I don't think you've got a very objective outlook on the matter. Just because it's USED or IMPLEMENTED doesn't make it worthy of being used. It just means some company somewhere got a proverbial BJ or cutback for using it.
Nobody, anywhere, would use Vista unless MS forces them to be removing all older windows versions and forcing it to be installed on all new hardware across the planet. Gee, guess what? MS is doing that now, so Vista will be used. Doesn't mean its use validates its existence.
-
Like many things, it (DRM/HDCP) was/is perceived to be a solution to piracy, but in fact, it isn't. DES was supposed to prevent piracy on DVD's and it didn't. AACS was supposed to be unbreakable and got broken faster than DES did. I cannot really think of any anti-piracy effort which has prevented piracy. Can you?
---
Apple reported there is a significant slow down on DRM enabled music sales in iTunes versus non DRM enabled music. And due to this, they will be dropping DRM enabled music from thier lists, in the near future. They are trying to get the providers of the DRM enabled tunes to drop the DRM.
I caught that on the news this morning.
Of course, it probably does not help when .Steve Jobs (http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/) is being very vocal about leading an anti-DRM movement. I wish him well with that effort and have offered to help as well.
And if you are not one to read what Mr. Jobs has to say, "Why would the big four music companies agree to let Apple and others distribute their music without using DRM systems to protect it? The simplest answer is because DRMs haven’t worked, and may never work, to halt music piracy. ", is just a bit from that.
---
Here is what Starforce and things of that nature will do for a company. As a consumer, I will no longer buy any Sony manufactured media which I may put into my computer ROM drive. I know others who feel the same way.
I will no longer buy any game which has Starforce on it. I know others who feel the same way.
---
All these attempts to prevent piracy are failing miserably. I have always paid for my media. Always. But, I would consider grabbing a pirated copy of HD content, if I ever bought any which had ICT enabled on it. Or I would hack my own copy to remove ICT.
But instead, I am boycotting HD content in its entirety. I will not buy any hardware which has HDCP hardware installed either. In the overall scheme of things, it will not matter, but I really do not care as it does matter to me
-
Originally posted by Mini D
I've never met a more obtuse group in my life.
WHY DID THEY ADOPT IT!?! WHAT WAS THE MARKETING THAT MADE THEM ADOPT IT!?! WHAT MARKETING MADE THEM CHOSE (not be forced) TO BUY AN ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE AND ADD DESIGN OVERHEAD TO THEIR PRODUCT!?!
PS... none of those links show a slow in DRM sales.
I guess Ubisoft thought it was a good idea at the time to use Starforce.
Coutnless complaints and a class action lawsuit made them see sense.
They are even releasing patches for games previously distributed with Starforce 'drivers' to remove them.
Many other companies that previously used Starforce have gone the same route.
Interesting read on Vista and DRM -
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/%7Epgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html
[edit] Is there a video card out there that is 100% HD content compliant?
Wasn't ATI subject to a lawsuit after claiming theirs were, but turned out not to be?
100% with Skuzzy on this one - All Vista and DRM does is inconvenience your average user to try and stop Pirates who will find a way round it anyway.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
How about answering this simple question:
How do you prevent DvDs, CDs and such from being freely distributed over the internet?
I have purchased the following:
Entire Pink Floyd catalog (over 70+)
Entire Queen catalog
Entire Beatles catalog
Entire Zeppelin catalog
Entire Classic Elton John catalog
Roughly $2,000 worth of CD's purchased because of tapes copied from my oldest brother's Vinyl Collection.
I'm sure if they were to be told this, they'd thank me.
BTW, I have 76GB of mp3's and not ONE gets shared.
-
I also will not go into the last 50+ CD's I've purchased after listening "to pirated" albums from Torrents.
They'll complain too about piracy, I negated their argument. Again, they'd thank me.
-
I may be an R2-D2 Building Geek.
But confessing to owning the entire Elton John catalog? Brave!
:)
-
Originally posted by LePaul
I may be an R2-D2 Building Geek.
But confessing to owning the entire Elton John catalog? Brave!
:)
:rofl :rofl :rofl :aok
-
Originally posted by LePaul
I may be an R2-D2 Building Geek.
But confessing to owning the entire Elton John catalog? Brave!
:)
No, from his first to Rock of the Westies. The rest of his stuff is garbage.
-
MiniD, are you Bill Gates personal secretary or what? Or maybe his brother, or cousin?
:cry
One thing im worried about is how Vista will effect solitaire. Because if i cant play solitaire, then ill never go to Vista.
-
Originally posted by BMnot
MiniD, are you Bill Gates personal secretary or what? Or maybe his brother, or cousin?
:cry
One thing im worried about is how Vista will effect solitaire. Because if i cant play solitaire, then ill never go to Vista.
Vista solitaire, you may be pleased to know, works very well. No bugs -er anomalies noted yet. :D
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
I guess Ubisoft thought it was a good idea at the time to use Starforce.
Why? What would make them take on the extra expense and overhead? Krusty obviously isn't willing to answer this one. Skuzzy has already said no developer would do it. Why did Ubisoft decide to go with it?
-
Originally posted by Mini D
I've never met a more obtuse group in my life.
WHY DID THEY ADOPT IT!?! WHAT WAS THE MARKETING THAT MADE THEM ADOPT IT!?! WHAT MARKETING MADE THEM CHOSE (not be forced) TO BUY AN ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE AND ADD DESIGN OVERHEAD TO THEIR PRODUCT!?!
PS... none of those links show a slow in DRM sales.
Let me clarify: Slow down in DRM restricted media sales. The providers are seeing a trend there and are getting rid of the DRM simply because consumers won't buy the crap.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Why? What would make them take on the extra expense and overhead? Krusty obviously isn't willing to answer this one. Skuzzy has already said no developer would do it. Why did Ubisoft decide to go with it?
Why? Because they obviously wanted to protect their product from illegal copying. And they believed the marketing Starforce gave them. Believed up to the extent that they secretly installed Starforce even with a game DEMO on a victims computer.
Which later on lead to bluescreens on starforce version conflict on actual game and demo etc. small things. :rolleyes: No biggie, just bluescreen and corrupt OS installation because of non-functional DRM. No biggie at all.
In the end, starforce was cracked before the boxes were shipped to furthest retail places and consumers got only problems as a result.
Guess what: Ubisoft shot itself in the leg bigtime with the move. It never sold a single copy more because of the product but what it did was get sued and lose a buttload of previous customers after their hardware got porked through SF.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Why? What would make them take on the extra expense and overhead? Krusty obviously isn't willing to answer this one. Skuzzy has already said no developer would do it. Why did Ubisoft decide to go with it?
What did I mention a developer would not do as it pertains to Starforce? If you are talking about copy-protection, I cannot find where I made any particular comment about it. I may have, but I cannot find it.
On game protection; The market has shown it will not tolerate intrusive means of protection. Starforce is a shining example of intrusive protection and one that truly hurt Ubisoft's bottomline.
Every developer who has tried any type of copy protection mechanism ends up dumping it. The cost of the protection is simply too high, in terms of licensing it, and lost sales due to it. Most companies have discovered none of the copy protection schemes actually do anything to stop piracy.
Quite the opposite actually. When something is put out as copy protected it gets pirated even faster. It seems pirates see copy protection as an oppertunity.
-
For the record, MiniD, I DID answer you. The ONLY reason anybody would implement Starforce is marketing hype, exaggerating the fears of game developers to the point they need to do something, and then blowing smoke up their aft-end.
I thought I was fairly clear on that. Thanks for ignoring me and not reading my threads, I think I'll return the favor from now on.
-
The reality for me, is that because my older but perfectly functional, $3000 bigscreen HDTV (1080I) doesn't have a HDCP compliant HDMI interface I cannot take advantage of Blue Ray or HD-DVD or upsampling DVD players, since they all revert to 480p if an analog component video connection is used.
I refuse to upgrade my excellent TV solely to take advantage of these technologies. Hurts their business as a result and pisses me off, expecially since there is now an easy workaround for the real pirates out there.
Charon
-
Originally posted by Krusty
For the record, MiniD, I DID answer you. The ONLY reason anybody would implement Starforce is marketing hype, exaggerating the fears of game developers to the point they need to do something, and then blowing smoke up their aft-end.
I thought I was fairly clear on that. Thanks for ignoring me and not reading my threads, I think I'll return the favor from now on.
That's not an answer. That's rhetoric.
As for you skuzzy, I'm noting your comment on what all developers will and won't do with extra requirements. I don't think you speak for anyone but yourself. People share your view, but I'm pretty sure it's still JUST your view.
The other thing I didn't see mentioned in this thread at all:
Some of this may be irrelevant because HDCP is activated by a flag present on the movie discs themselves. Currently, no currently released titles utilize HDCP protection, and rumors abound that it could be 2010 before movies with HDCP are released.
Doesn't that tend to indicate that there's still a long way to go on developing this "standard" and maybe knee-jerk reaction is a bit premature?
-
Interesting scenario for you -
The playback device and the display device decide on a mutual AKE value with which to encrypt the content, all the video content will be encrypted using this mutual value. Additionally, the system will check every couple of seconds to ensure the integrity of both the keys and the link.
So sometime down the line the keys are cracked and those keys are added to the revokation list.
Those keys are automatically added to your devices revokation list via System Renewability Messages and the device stops passing HD content.
These SRM's and revokation lists will even be on HD DVD's and Blu-rays.
Where do you go from there?
You have a perfectly legally bought chain of HDCP devices of which one/two or all will no longer pass HD content.
Does the manufacturer have to replace every piece of HDCP equipment affected, or is more than likely going to be 'tough, get over it'.
-
Just curious, is there ever an example of some media lacking DRM and was pirated such that the devloper/publisher/investors did not profit from it? (Software, movies, music, etc.) Yet how many times has DRM caused games to be unplayable and cd's to be unreadable?
DRM creates monopolies. I love my iPod but...since I PAID for all that music, shouldn't I be able to listen to it on ANY device? Sure I CAN, but not without removing the DRM.
It seems to be the fear of a "lossless copy" drives DRM more than the actual theft statistics. Which loses more money...piracy or the heavy handed attempts at preventing piracy?
Was the world so bleak for devloper/publishers before copy protection was popular? How did Id Software ever mange with users being able to replicate Doom like a batch of bunnies? HTC basically gives away a free flight simulator to whoever would want it...yet they still manage to profit. Stardock has no DRM in Galactic Civilizations, yet it's one of the hottest selling space strategy games ever.
DRM isn't the devil...I want the devlopers to make money...so they can give me better and better content. But do we really need to design an OS around DRM? Do we need to be repressed by a DRM license on things we willingly pay for?
Just my thoughts...
ps. Help help I'm being repressed! Come witness the violence inherent in the system!
-
Originally posted by Mini D
As for you skuzzy, I'm noting your comment on what all developers will and won't do with extra requirements. I don't think you speak for anyone but yourself. People share your view, but I'm pretty sure it's still JUST your view.
I'm all aglow that you would note my comments.
-
I'm getting that Warm Skuzzy Feeling ....... Either that or i pee'd my pants .
:noid
-
Either way, that is certainly TMI!!!!!!! LOL!
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Well, it just proves the futility of trying to protect digital content via encryption.
I, for one, would like to see it all fail. I am a videophile and audiophile. I love my toys and will pay a lot of money for them. However, I refuse to buy one HD or BluRay disc, nor player, simply due to the fact I cannot make a backup copy of the media.
While I will not support piracy by obtaining pirated content, I will be rooting for them to just bust this stuff all to heck and back. I would rather see HD content pulled from the shelves than the current implementation being done.
I wish people had more guts to walk away from this type of technology. Technology which hampers the end user is not good and should never be considered an option. This is not the way to stop piracy. It only makes it worse.
The HDCP BS implemented in Home Theater hardware in the name of DRM has been a disaster for the consumer. Just look at any of the forums such as -
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/forumdisplay.php?s=&daysprune=&f=168
Consumers spend thousands of $ to legally purchase hardware only to find that various components won't connect via HDMI due to HDCP handshake issues. They can't even watch their legally purchased HD content once thanks to DRM. Thanks Hollywood.
I can't wait for the HDCP compliant video cards. :( PC owners will be added to the list of screaming consumers.
-
Skuzzy,
You're correct about copy protection methods. In my previous job working for a software firm that made nav software for boaters....we ran into all sorts of issues we hadnt foreseen.
In the case of several customers, we had a simple first-time install reg code. They called our toll free number, or emailed us the numbers/letters that was being prompted and we'd provide the code to "unlock" the program. The users had 30 days, from install, to obtain this info.
However, we had several users who had a variety of Windows OS crashes that, upon reinstall, the software wouldnt see the fragged reg entry. Or, since these folks were worldwide sailing, they simply weren't in phone range or email contact.
So in short, what we thought sounded reasonable turned out to be quite unrealistic in light of the environment our customers were in. Not every customer was a Navy cruiser with instant satellite telephone abilities.
Back to Starforce...
Like most flight sim folks, I check the reviews before diving head first into a new game. Many of the reviews I read on Lock-On clearly warned about Starforce. Some linked to web forums where the Starforce software was conflicting with I/O issues/drivers for things such as DVD/CD writers. Who wants to chance trashing their system setup for that?
-
I've braved starforce for a select few games, Silent Hunter 3, Lock On Modern Air Combat, and Flanker2. I usually install the games and remove starforce, run with a cracked exe, whatever it takes to play without starforce.
I hate the games that force you to have the cd in the drive. If your already using the cd-key "DRM" then let the poor bloke play without having to dig around for a cd. Many of my games I ran with cracked exe's simply because i dont' want to have to swap cd's around all the time. I guess I'm an ADD gamer...I usually play 3 or 4 at any given moment.
Currently it's AH, Locomotion, IL2:1946, and Evil Genius (quite possibly the most hilarous building game ever).
-
Originally posted by republic
I've braved starforce for a select few games, Silent Hunter 3, Lock On Modern Air Combat, and Flanker2. I usually install the games and remove starforce, run with a cracked exe, whatever it takes to play without starforce.
I hate the games that force you to have the cd in the drive. If your already using the cd-key "DRM" then let the poor bloke play without having to dig around for a cd. Many of my games I ran with cracked exe's simply because i dont' want to have to swap cd's around all the time. I guess I'm an ADD gamer...I usually play 3 or 4 at any given moment.
Currently it's AH, Locomotion, IL2:1946, and Evil Genius (quite possibly the most hilarous building game ever).
Exactly, I for example have a 6-year old kid who regularly trashes dvd's and cd's if they're left around (say, in the dvd-rom). It would be a total nightmare having to leave valuable game medias in the player only to be destroyed by a 3-6 year old tag team.
No-cd patches are a gift from heaven.
-
News flash! Two thirds of _recording industry_ execs support getting rid of DRM as a way of speeding up digital media sales.. Who'd've thunk it? :huh
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6362069.stm
-
So... MS's real reason for DRM becomes clear, controlling the Galaxy....
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
News flash! Two thirds of _recording industry_ execs support getting rid of DRM as a way of speeding up digital media sales.. Who'd've thunk it? :huh
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6362069.stm
You need to re-read that article.
-
Recently Steve Jobs made some waves with his thoughts on DRM.
http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/
The CEO of Macrovison, one of the leading DRM providers, responded to Job's open letter.
http://www.macrovision.com/company/news/drm/response_letter.shtml
But a Slashdot.org reader found the Translation From PR-Speak to English of Selected Portions of Macrovision CEO Fred Amoroso’s Response to Steve Jobs’s ‘Thoughts on Music’.
http://daringfireball.net/2007/02/macrovision_translation
:lol
Regards,
Sun
-
Originally posted by Mini D
You need to re-read that article.
What did you see with your RIAA corrected lenses? Do tell.
-
I'm looking at what you said and what was in the article. The two don't match. To be honest, the article has very little to do with Vista. It has to do with relying on something like the iPod's proprietary licensing. "It woud be better if you could play an MP3 on any MP3 player" is not saying they want something like DRM removed. It's saying they wish there were a more versatile way to distribute software in a protected mannor.
-
MiniD, look at me, I'm a non-audiophile/videophile consumer.
Will I buy a modern DRM based product? No.
Why not? Because I'm aware from much literature about the restrictions this places on how and what I can watch. I've also had bad experiences with the lifetime of DVDs and CDs, especially having a 2 year old. I think that DVDs are also priced artificially high in New Zealand (new releas is ~US$30).
How will I access HD quality content should I wish too? Pirated material. I have ready access via the internet (non-p2p) sources which have a wealth of HD media. With the advent of R5 releases I can get decent quality content at the same time it is theatres here (sometimes earlier). Should I ever use a p2p application then I'd have even more at my fingertips. I also have access to masses of material via such simple non-geek sources as our courier who pops into the office who shares his episodes of Lost and Hereos around on a 80Gb ipod he uses as a removeable media.
What does this mean? It means consumers are saying no to DRM. DRM will force piracy to increase. The entertainment industry messed up with digital audio and digital audio delivery. It ignored it until piracy forced them to deliver what the market wanted. Now they're doing it all over again with movies.
-
What else do you own that you can replace for free when a 2 year old destroys it?
-
Originally posted by Mini D
What else do you own that you can replace for free when a 2 year old destroys it?
Video CD's, audio CD's, and video tapes. Previously I was allowed to back these up for legitimate personal purposes.
Next question?
-
That's it? Digital/Audio content? Nothing else? What if your two year old breaks a vase? What if a two year old flushes your watch down the toilet?
How about this, since this seems to be the most adamant sticking point for the erm... "pro-backup" crowd:
What if they were introduce a means of backing up your digital content that would allow you to restore it, but you couldn't listen to the backup? What if you were only allowed to listen to the content on one device at a time... and the backup was totally non-functional?
One purchase on one device at a time. This seems to be the goal. Explain to me how that is unreasonable.
-
OK so now I've purchased the CD and can use it my home stereo.
I also like to walk outside and listen to my MP3 player.
I've already purchased the music but now I'll have to do it again to get in an MP3 format?
Or the mp3 player in my car I don't like having 40 CDs in my car. Do i have to by the MP3 version again?
Just asking.
Bronk
-
Yup, same as bronk states.
When I paid for the license to listen to the music (if I understand the copyright mumbo jumbo from the riaa, I don't own the music) then why can I not listen to it on the medium I want - car cd stereo; home stereo; pc; mp3 player or otherwise.
As for the Vase. Interesting analogy but so far my son hasn't broken any of the DVD's. Most of the problems I've faced have come from wear and tear on the DVD from normal usage (in and out of the DVD player).
However, back to the Vase. If I had the capability to back it up I would. Instead I have home contents insurance for that.
The goal is not One purchase on one device at a time. The goal is buy and play on THEIR choice of hardware in THEIR choice of price. Monopolies hate competition, and in this case piracy is their only competition.
-
Actually, I don't like the "this music can only be played on this product" aspect of DRM. This is the main effect of Apple's proprietary system right now.
But, I can understand the concerns of those that own the rights to the music. As you've so inadvertantly admitted, the "backup" feature is second to the ability to load it on all of your hardware (not any of it... all of it). Having it play on only one device at a time is the crux. Backing it up is not. The backup becomes exactly what you pretend it is not... a copy of the music that can be played on another device by anyone else.
I would imagine the ultimate goal of the RIAA or any digital content centric companies will be allowing flexibility with some level of control. Not caring if it plays on your car stereo, your computer and your home stereo... but rather insuring that it isn't made openly available to everyone elses. Without some kind of DRM, this will not be possible. As it's implimented right now, it's not even close to ideal, but the groundwork for this needs to be explored.
I'd really like to hear skuzzy's "I could do it, but I'm not going to tell anyone how" solution.
-
mini-d at the end of the day it boils down to entertainment industry greed.
Consumers have had enough. 3 years ago when it was just us geeks ripping stuff was different. Now I see the noob courier/delivery driver sharing Lost episodes and movies with our receptionist.
DRM will not stop piracy, and the path ahead only serves to encourage piracy as consumers perceive themselves pushed further and further from fair use. You can argue the logic and merits and rights and laws all you want. But this is what is happening right now.
-
I can argue "rights and merits and laws" all I want? Gee... thanks.
I see alot of piracy myself these days. Don't try and pin that on the "industry". There's nothing driving it right now other than simple accessability and availability. Netflix combined with DvD Shrink and you've got an instant DvD factory. Throw in bittorent and it get's a bit easier.
There's really two options: Either you like what is being offered enough to buy it or you don't buy it. Stealing it establishes a value on the product. This is why the studios have the upper hand. Nobody drove someone to steal. It is just so damn easy... why not?
I guess it just gets to me when someone tries to pass this off as corperate greed as if consumer greed playes no part in this. That's what I've seen repeatedly in this thread. That's what I see when people start using "back up" instead of "play on multiple systems" as if the two are interchangeable.
Rhetoric has clouded the real issues and real solutions.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
I'm looking at what you said and what was in the article. The two don't match. To be honest, the article has very little to do with Vista. It has to do with relying on something like the iPod's proprietary licensing. "It woud be better if you could play an MP3 on any MP3 player" is not saying they want something like DRM removed. It's saying they wish there were a more versatile way to distribute software in a protected mannor.
Direct quote from the article:
Also, 62% believed that dropping DRM and releasing music files that can be enjoyed on any MP3 player would boost the take-up of digital music generally.
Any mp3 player means NO DRM.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Actually, I don't like the "this music can only be played on this product" aspect of DRM. This is the main effect of Apple's proprietary system right now.
But, I can understand the concerns of those that own the rights to the music. As you've so inadvertantly admitted, the "backup" feature is second to the ability to load it on all of your hardware (not any of it... all of it). Having it play on only one device at a time is the crux. Backing it up is not. The backup becomes exactly what you pretend it is not... a copy of the music that can be played on another device by anyone else.
I would imagine the ultimate goal of the RIAA or any digital content centric companies will be allowing flexibility with some level of control. Not caring if it plays on your car stereo, your computer and your home stereo... but rather insuring that it isn't made openly available to everyone elses. Without some kind of DRM, this will not be possible. As it's implimented right now, it's not even close to ideal, but the groundwork for this needs to be explored.
I'd really like to hear skuzzy's "I could do it, but I'm not going to tell anyone how" solution.
*COUGH* BS ALERT!
Tell me which DRM 'protected' item is not freely available on the internet as we speak, cracked and hacked.
Thanks in advance.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
There's nothing driving it right now other than simple accessability and availability.
and why are we saying drm is bad and will drive more piracy?
-
That's a bit of a silly argument: "It's obviously not effective, so they shouldn't even try."
Honestly guys... get over the rhetoric.
-
I have bought DRM protected music from internet, so far I have not had any problems with it.
Service providers rules are very easy:
I have right to burn music to CDs, but not more than 5 CD's.
I have right to install music to 5 mobile devices.
I have right to make back up copies under rules stated earlier.
basicly, if you burn files to CD, DRM protection expires and it is up to you if you use them right or wrong.
-
See Rule #7
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
See Rule #7
Just put the CD in and press "play" :D
-
Originally posted by mipoikel
Just put the CD in and press "play" :D
Umm.. it only has a harddrive and usb/firewire connections.
-
||||| ||||| ||||| ||||| |||||
||||| ||||| ||||| |||
:rolleyes: I say take it to DA :noid My money is on the guy with the most keystrokes so far:aok
Just making light of an interesting conversation, gone a bit heated (like a moth to the flame -- here I am :p I know you are, but what am I !!!!)
-
If I weren't ignoring Mini-D, I'd notice he just compared digital media to solid corporeal objects (a vase).
You buy a CD. What are you getting?
A flat disc? No. You're getting digital 1s an 0s on the disc. The disc is just how they're stored. It's the box package.
The very nature of digital media is hard to define. It's not a matter of "one copy" -- because it takes no effort, no additional material to make a copy. You're not purchasing a DVD, you're not purchasing a CD-ROM. These things by themselves are glorified coasters for your frosty beverage.
You're purchasing the right to watch and listen to the material on them. If the coaster gets scratched, you still have that media, which you paid for the right to listen to.
The fact that it doesn't exist except in a series of 1s and 0s means that conventional ownership and copyright laws don't apply, and many people have acknowledged this fact.
How can you own the rights to a series of 1s and 0s? You can own the rights to a song, to the distribution of CDs that have that song on them, but you can't own the rights of digital bits that don't really exist in the physical world. All they are, is a collection of electrons.
You can't own these. You can't copyright these.
Oh, and P.S. if media companies wanted to stop piracy they'd stop sending fresh just-printed reels of movies to Hong Kong. They'd cut off the piracy hubs of SE Asia that produce 99.99999% of all pirated or bootlegged material. Piracy is cut in half almost overnight. Why don't they? Because they're greedy SOBs and the few million (drop in the bucket) they get from sending the films over there in the first place is worth the hundreds of millions loss from piracy, to their math.
-
Interesting point...the amount of cracked/copied movies overseas dwarfs what the average user will ever do. I wonder why RIAA hasn't had more luck shutting down the Asian copy houses better?
-
I'd imagine because it's out of their control. Change the way hardware plays these things and it might have an impact.
I've heard the 1's and 0's argument too many times krusty. It's irrelevant. You are paying for a DvD. If it is damaged, you've lost it. If those 1's and 0's on that CD are damaged, they're lost. This is the same with anything you purchase.
You've created a different set of criteria and expectations for this particular product. You expect the people selling it to conform to your expectations. I think you are being obtuse.
-
I'm not alone it seems.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
You are paying for a DvD. If it is damaged, you've lost it. If those 1's and 0's on that CD are damaged, they're lost. This is the same with anything you purchase.
I've always understood the EULA's to mean that I have the right to use the data rather than anything governing the physical object. Maybe this only applies to software? Otherwise, if the EULA only covers the physical object...I could use the one cd/dvd I bought and install the software on every computer I come in contact with.
Despite all the arguing over the fine points of DRM, the fact remains... Those who are going to steal....will steal. Anything created by a man, can be undone by a man. The excess and intrusion of DRM only hurts the consumer...not the thief.
Because of the inherent vulnerability of something that cannot be seen or touched (data), I should have the right to backup any software/digital media I purchase... If the software publishers/record labels don't give me that right...I am thankful for the "1337 hax0rs" that do. :)
-
Originally posted by republic
Despite all the arguing over the fine points of DRM, the fact remains... Those who are going to steal....will steal. Anything created by a man, can be undone by a man. The excess and intrusion of DRM only hurts the consumer...not the thief.
What an interesting thing to say. Do you honestly believe that everyone downloading music on the internet would still be doing it if it were made more difficult? Can't you concede that the ease with which it is accomplished can lend to an increase in the rate at which it is accomplished?
There's a difference between breaking into someone's house and stealing something and seeing someone drop something... not saying anything and then picking it up. It has to do with opportunity. It has a considerable ammount to do with opportunity.
As for the "why don't they do more about china" "I see I'm not alone statements"... that's pretty much the "what about them defense." Desperation breeds rhetoric.
-
My "I'm not alone" statement was meant to illustrate that you are being obtuse more than I. Sadly, you couldn't see this as you just ignore anything anybody else says if it doesn't agree with you. History is full of people like that.
-
First off stealing & theft are the wrong words to use in this discussion.
As whats being lost is not the object, but the $$$ the supposed sales of the object would have brought.
Its like if I had a magic wand that could "scan" your car, and then reproduce one for me. I'm not "stealing" yours, you've lost nothing. The car company maintains they've lost revenue. But have they? Chances are I wouldn't have bought that car at any price. But if I can "scan" one for free, sure, why not.
The car dealer didn't lose money because I never would have paid for that new car in the first place. The person who's car I scanned didn't lose anything.
So how is it theft?
-
Its like if I had a magic wand that could "scan" your car, and then reproduce one for me. I'm not "stealing" yours, you've lost nothing. The car company maintains they've lost revenue. But have they? Chances are I wouldn't have bought that car at any price. But if I can "scan" one for free, sure, why not.
The car dealer didn't lose money because I never would have paid for that new car in the first place. The person who's car I scanned didn't lose anything.
Thanks for posting that. You have just summed up how grossly rediculous logic has gotten on this subject... though I don't think you've intended quite that way.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
My "I'm not alone" statement was meant to illustrate that you are being obtuse more than I. Sadly, you couldn't see this as you just ignore anything anybody else says if it doesn't agree with you. History is full of people like that.
I'm sorry I misinterpreted a vague 4 word statement.
I'm being obtuse by not to accepting that the RIAA is evil, Microsoft is Evil and anyone that wants to protect their product is evil. Gotcha.
-
This is very much an argument between two different opposing views. One the content provider needing reliability that the content they provide cannot be duplicated in any way or form to insure their revenue stream. Then the counter argument of the consumer requiring easier flexibility with their media and home entertainment systems.
lot of the discussion hasn't been on legal position of the consumer nor the legal position of the content providers. Most of the discussion is simply heated political and emotional energy of the posters. Nothing is actually going to come out of a discussion. Unless people start posting their sources of information and facts about the restrictions DRM imposes. The only person i've seen who has done this has been skuzzy!
That being said, the consumer will dictate what they find acceptable with the new technology. No amount of discussion even through mini D may be wrong/correct is going to change that fact. You're always going to have different viewpoints of the topic.
-
Since you're analogy is too funny Ghost, maybe you could ask yourself one simple question: If you had a device like that, would you ever purchase any car again? Would you purchase anything ever again?
-
Originally posted by Mini D
What an interesting thing to say. Do you honestly believe that everyone downloading music on the internet would still be doing it if it were made more difficult? Can't you concede that the ease with which it is accomplished can lend to an increase in the rate at which it is accomplished?
My point is, that for those who want to steal...it will ALWAYS be easy. It doesn't take but a couple of google searches to break every DRM in existence...and it will always be that way.
DRM isn't evil, there should be DRM of some kind. But we shouldn't clobber every unsuspecting consumer over the head to TRY and prevent a pirate who can (eventually) circumvent any DRM.
There's a difference between acceptable DRM (a cd key) and intrusive DRM (starforce).
-
Originally posted by Mini D
I'd imagine because it's out of their control. Change the way hardware plays these things and it might have an impact.
Hmm mini d I thought you were an expert on such things. In fact I've even mentioned the solution the movie industry came up with... and it wasn't DRM. It was R5 DVD's: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R5_%28bootleg%29
In both Eastern Europe and Asia the cost of movies is significantly less than in most other places (afaik R5 isn't used in Asia yet).
-
Region coding? LOL! OK. You're the expert. I'm just the one showing you an expert can have his head up his ass.
-
DVD region codes are worthless.
Almost all computer DVD drives and most DVD players can be unlocked to play any region coded DVDs.
Doesn't that just help prove the point though?
No matter what you do, and to what expense you go, people will find a way around it.
Who did region coded DVDs affect the most?
Your regular user, not the pirates.
Having lived in the U.S. now for 6 years I have built up quite an extensive DVD collection.
If I was to move back to the U.K. all my DVD's would be useless.
I've paid for them, and I doubt they would exchange them for European coded DVD's.
Luckily enough I have a multi system/region/voltage DVD player, also a multi system/voltage television.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Region coding? LOL! OK. You're the expert. I'm just the one showing you an expert can have his head up his ass.
Mini D. If you are going to post in this thread and act all high and mighty - it'd be nice if you could click the link and read what R5 refers too. It merely got named that because it occurs in region 5. The movie industries answer was not regionalisation but significantly cheaper pricing and fast releases to combat piracy. Not DRM.
So, maybe you'd like to pull your head out of your backside or are you just here to read your own posts because you like "the sound of your own voice"?
-
How did DvD region coding affect regular users again? A regular user buys a DvD in china and tries to play it in the U.S.?
I know what region coding is Vulcan. I'm no expert on it. I'm no expert on DRM either. I'm going to maintain you aren't an expert on it either seing as how the OS that uses it was just introduced and doesn't seem to be using much of it yet.
I have heard how much damage it WILL do... How horrible it WILL be... how many rights it WILL take away... how NONE of your hardware will work with it. I'm still laughing at all of that.
-
DVD players coded to a specific region will only play DVD's from that region.
So if you go on holiday to Japan (region 2) and buy a DVD and bring it to the U.S. (region 1), it will not play on a DVD player coded specifically for region 1.
Luckilly enough most DVD players and drives can be unlocked to be play any region DVD.
Region coding was 'supposed' to protect copyright and distribution rights.
HOWEVER - There is now Regional Coding Enhancement which prevents selected region 1 DVD's from playing on unlocked players.
This only affects region 1 DVD's (US and Canada) and no others.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
How did DvD region coding affect regular users again? A regular user buys a DvD in china and tries to play it in the U.S.?
I know what region coding is Vulcan. I'm no expert on it. I'm no expert on DRM either. I'm going to maintain you aren't an expert on it either seing as how the OS that uses it was just introduced and doesn't seem to be using much of it yet.
I have heard how much damage it WILL do... How horrible it WILL be... how many rights it WILL take away... how NONE of your hardware will work with it. I'm still laughing at all of that.
Ummmm did you even read what I posted... again? Or do you just see a couple of words and start blabbering?
-
Actually... I did. Did you read the site you linked? Cheap fast releases that weren't copyable to American markets. Where were they combatting piracy again?
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
DVD players coded to a specific region will only play DVD's from that region.
That is obvious.So if you go on holiday to Japan (region 2) and buy a DVD and bring it to the U.S. (region 1), it will not play on a DVD player coded specifically for region 1.
If you buy a DvD in Japan, you're paying twice as much for it just to bring it back. That said, how many people do you honestly think this impacts? The regular user? Cripes... you had to take a $10k trip just to find a way to make this one work.Luckilly enough most DVD players and drives can be unlocked to be play any region DVD.
By the regular user? I don't think so.
I seriously doubt most of you know what a "regular user" is anymore.
-
OK MiniD -
What if, as in my case I want a DVD that is only available in the U.K. and can get a family member to send it to me?
It's a legal store bought version of the movie, yet without a region free player I couldn't watch it.
I didn't say that they might have gone to Japan just to buy a DVD, but what if they decided to pick a couple up?
Oh btw - If your hardware isn't HDCP compliant you will lose 75% of the possible display resolution when watching HD content (IF it shows anything at all).
Suppose you'd be more than happy if you bought a 2Ghz CPU and it only ran at 500Mhz.
Couldn't be the whole thing is money driven as opposed to anti-piracy could it?
Annual licensing fee for HDCP = $15,000.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
OK MiniD -
What if, as in my case I want a DVD that is only available in the U.K. and can get a family member to send it to me?
It's a legal store bought version of the movie, yet without a region free player I couldn't watch it.
This is a "regular user" story again?
Oh btw - If your hardware isn't HDCP compliant you will lose 75% of the possible display resolution when watching HD content (IF it shows anything at all).
Suppose you'd be more than happy if you bought a 2Ghz CPU and it only ran at 500Mhz.
I don't think that will be the case once things are sorted out. People seem to be insisting it will be, without really knowing since there isn't HDCP encoded DvDs yet.Couldn't be the whole thing is money driven as opposed to anti-piracy could it?
Annual licensing fee for HDCP = $15,000.
You are actually the first person to bring up licensing outside of the "movie studios must approve it" line. I'm very curious to see how that will play out. Though, I imagine the $15k per year for HDCP will pale in comparison to what they're paying for HD DvD and BlueRay licensing fees.
To be honest, you'd have to be half crazy to buy HD content right now. Someone's going to end up with one hell of a collection to add to their betamax and laser disc collections. It's too imature right now... and there's not a clear indication which way the battle is going.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
I don't think that will be the case once things are sorted out. People seem to be insisting it will be, without really knowing since there isn't HDCP encoded DvDs yet.
Actually HDCP specifically RESTRICTS the output of HD content on non-HDCP products to DVD quality, it is hardware coded into the devices.
Also audio content is resticted to DAT quality on non HDCP devices.
This isn't open to question, it is part of the HDCP requirements/standards and vendors applying for a license MUST agree to the limits or they won't get a license.
Looking at the list of licensed companies up to now, at $15k a pop per year, it's hardly a drop in the ocean.
http://www.digital-cp.com/list/
[edit] Should add - It is up to the source (Movie companies etc) to decide whether you get either 480p (DVD quality), or NOTHING when viewing with non HDCP equipment.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
How did DvD region coding affect regular users again? A regular user buys a DvD in china and tries to play it in the U.S.?
It affect me, I can to buy a US DVD but I'm not supposed to be able to play it.
And when the film is not availlable in France what should I do ?
Get a torrent ?
-
Originally posted by straffo
It affect me, I can to buy a US DVD but I'm not supposed to be able to play it.
And when the film is not availlable in France what should I do ?
Get a torrent ?
Midi D is so limited to his own little world, he doesn't understand that enthusiasts regularly do business overseas to find rare or yet unreleased copies of movies. The region code is supposed to enforce a price fixing between continents, in itself completely illegal.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Actually HDCP specifically RESTRICTS the output of HD content on non-HDCP products to DVD quality, it is hardware coded into the devices.
That's contrary to at least one of the articles linked above. I'll quote it again:
Some of this may be irrelevant because HDCP is activated by a flag present on the movie discs themselves. Currently, no currently released titles utilize HDCP protection, and rumors abound that it could be 2010 before movies with HDCP are released.
So... you're talking about the hardware not being HDCP certified, not the content. You seem to be interchanging the two. I don't forsee the hardware side of this being an issue for long at all. Compatability and certification will fall in line. It always has, no matter what the doom and gloom crowd says. The same things were being banterred about when DirectX was becoming king. Hell, the good old days boasted programs that would only work with specific video/sound hardware.
It affect me, I can to buy a US DVD but I'm not supposed to be able to play it.
That would be correct. I'm sure you've suffered greatly because of this, as has every "regular" user.
And when the film is not availlable in France what should I do ?
Endeavor to persevere.
When the film is not available in your region, there's a large number of people to thank. National law that might prohibit the release of movies without the proper language tracks, distributors that can't work out deals with publishers, distributors that don't think a movie is worth providing to the demographic, a history that includes the banning of nazzi emblems... whatever.
This is such a miniscule impact on the DvD market it is almost hillarious it's even being brought up as an issue in this thread. I guess the fact that this is what DRM is being compared to should be putting things in perspective.
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
Midi D is so limited to his own little world, he doesn't understand that enthusiasts regularly do business overseas to find rare or yet unreleased copies of movies. The region code is supposed to enforce a price fixing between continents, in itself completely illegal.
Ah... the word I was looking for has finally crept in. "Enthusiasts". That word is a little different than "regular users". I do enjoy watching the doom and gloom conversations morph into something a little more realistic.
Just to recap:
Backup = Load on multiple devices so I can listen to it on all of them
Regular user = Enthusiast
Gotcha.
-
have a large DvD collection too. I guess I'm missing how losing a DvD would impact you to any degree other than having to fork out another $10 for it. The value of a restored disk makes the DvD worthless... so value retention isn't there. What I really don't understand is why you think you're entitled to a backup of a product you bought.
MiniD
This is the real underlying issue...and its already been clearly decided in the courts. Under existing copyright law you do have a right to back up legally purchased material....period. what makes certain companies feel they have the legal right to deny you your legal rights?
While piracy is a very real issue it is dwarfed by infringement of consumer copyright laws. As more and more technology interferes with this your getting closer to a real issue. When I buy a blueray DVD I bought the legal license to own and watch that content....not just the media disk. This is fundamental to US copywrite law. Continued attempts to combat piracy without protecting legitimate consumer rights are a multibillion $$$ lawsuit waiting to happen.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
This is such a miniscule impact on the DvD market it is almost hillarious it's even being brought up as an issue in this thread. I guess the fact that this is what DRM is being compared to should be putting things in perspective.
It's not an issue for you,it's a bit egocentric.
-
There is no such thing as 'HDCP certified' hardware. Either the hardware has HDCP embedded or it does not. HDCP is a hardware and software implementation.
I provided a link which explains it all. That link is from the company who is extorting,..er,..selling HDCP licenses.
The common error most people make, is not separating the hardware specification for HDCP from the software requirements. The software has control over the hardware. In HD content, the particular flag most people are concerned about is the ICT flag.
This flag has not been implemented yet. The decision was made by the HDCP committee to not allow the manufacturer's to implement this flag yet. The basic reason stems from a change in the HDCP specification, which is not backward compatible with previus specifications, but hardware and software had already been built to. Your basic mess.
So, once the committee thinks enough time has passed, they will allow the ICT flag to be enabled in the media. The ICT flag controls how HD content will be allowed to be viewed/heard based on the level of HDCP support in the chain of items used to play the content.
The ICT flag can tell HD players anything from not playing the content at all, to only allowing a lower resolution to be played, if HDCP is not available in every piece of hardware which has anything to do with playing the content (in a computer, this is the sound card, video card, monitor (via the DVI or HDMI connector), and player).
Now, that is the upshot of it. If one wants more information, it is available at the link I have already supplied.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Actually... I did. Did you read the site you linked? Cheap fast releases that weren't copyable to American markets. Where were they combatting piracy again?
Except they're not regionalized.
Cheap fast releases help them beat the black market pirates to market, especially the TS pirate or screener releases. It shows what the true cost of DVDs could be.
-
Very interesting conversation. After reading a bit on StarForce I see it only took one approach at copyright or Intelectual Property (IP) protection. That approach has a very high overhead because they are using a wrapper technology on everything. This causes overhead when programs initially load into memory. If the program cannot fit into the memory space then it must constantly unload, load and decrypt on the fly. This lead to poor performance.
As for "DES" encyrptions, they are weak by todays standards and not even considered by most Security Experts to be an effective encryption. AES/Blowfish is the latest standard and those have a glaring weakness. The algorithms assume there is a "Safe" place to use keys to do encryption/decryption of data. Doing a memory dump of while the decryption takes place...and you have the keys to the kingdom.
Hence, why so many AES protected programs get "hacked."
As for the AACS HD-DVD crack....again, doing an unprotected AES decryption in a hostile environment and poor protection lead to the comprimise of a single public key. This was taken from a specific piece of hardware that did not properly implement AACS on that hardware platform.
Hence the weakness is the encryption/decryption keys (AES) and the vendors that are doing the developing. These are where hackers are making their attacks count. By effectively hiding the keying material, 80% of the hacks would vanish.
Implementation, performance and cost is what is "keeping" companies from implementing fully hardened DRM solutions. A technical, performance and cost analysis is done for a DRM protection scheme, they guess at where the "most likely" attack is going to happen, they then harden only those points. Sooner or later, a hacker finds the soft spot they thought never would be found.
Then they patch that hole, and re-deploy. This is the cycle you see today. You have to weigh risk vs performance vs being first to market. To often, the first to market wins.
A good DRM solution would include:
Data and Code transformations on the programs running transport, encrypt/decrypt and storage procedures. Note: this is a tranformation not an "obfuscation." Obfuscators can be cracked very easily. This would be a true transfromation of the code that can produce multiple variants of the code with control flow flattening.
Secured Encryption Capabilties. Where the actual keys are never revealed in memory. Better yet, transformation is done on the keys and made even more complex by using keying tables.
Secure Loading: Where code can run in the memory space and does is not subject to swapping, secure loading can prevent byte-code insertion attacks.
Anti-Debug: Capabilities to "sense" when a debugger is run and trigger flags in the code when found.
Integrity Verification: On disk encyrpiton of code and dll's that is verified as program segments are loaded into memory.
So you can see why the costs on both performance and $$$ of DRM can be very high.
As for the morality of DRM and its implementation or protecting a companies Intellectual Property, I have no comment. However, I would like the keys to decrypt the flight performance data in my copy of AHII so I can fly my A6M like a jet and put auto tracking rounds in it. Of course I would only do this offline and I never intend to use it online or give the key to anyone else. I promise. Can I have them please? ;-) ( I am only joking of course)
Overall, very interesting thread.
Softail
-
Originally posted by straffo
It's not an issue for you,it's a bit egocentric.
Actually... you have that backwards. Because it's a big issue for you, you view it as a big issue for everyone. The phrase "regular user" came up... this does not apply to them. The word "enthusiast" then came up... this does apply to them.
-
Originally posted by humble
This is the real underlying issue...and its already been clearly decided in the courts. Under existing copyright law you do have a right to back up legally purchased material....period. what makes certain companies feel they have the legal right to deny you your legal rights?
I don't believe anyone has determined "you have the right to back up material". I do believe that no "backing up of material" has been seen as a copyright infringement. Do you think the two are the same?
In one scenario, the digital content provider would be required to provide some means of backing up material. The other scenario would mean the courts are not going to stop anyone from backing up material. The end result is that the digital content providers are left to their own devices to prevent backups.
-
Copy write law (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sup_01_17.html) clearly establishes your right to copy material {within specific guidelines}. This is the same case law that makes it illegal to restrict "OEM" software for use on the "original" machine. Copyright law is intended to protect the rights of the "developer" against improper use. Not to infringe on my right to protect my "asset". I have every right under the law to make a copy of any copywrited material. I do not have the right to sell, distribute or utilize a copy concurrently with the original.
Copying materials under other circumstances is also upheld under various case law. The law is designed to prevent the developer from having his "property rights" circumvented not precluding the exercise of an existing "use license".
As an example a teacher who copies a portion of a textbook and distributes it within the class is in violation of copyright law if the school doesn't own a suitable number of originals....however lets say the books were damaged in a sprinkler leak. The teacher would be within her rights to copy the needed text. The material could also be put online for viewing by the students. However online "publication" over a general access URL would be a violation of copyright. Internal publishing without sharing privileges restricted to the number of available copies (not in use as a text) would also be a violation. The concepts of copywrite and "user license" predate the computer age by centuries. The bastardization of the these laws (primarily by Microsoft IMO) are simply another aspect of a bigger problem.
-
Your wrong MiniD -
Title 17 of the U.S. Code states that
- "it is illegal to make or distribute copies of copyrighted material without authorization" (Section 106). The only exception is the users' right to make a backup copy for archival purposes (Section 117).
Individuals have a right to make a backup copy of software if one is not provided by the manufacturer.
Seems pretty clear to me that the user is entitled to a backup, basically to protect HIS investment.
-
In short, the way I learned it is that copyright law protects the right of the folks that create it to earn money. If folks give it away for free (piracy) that's cutting into their profits.
However, the creators have no right to infringe on the rights of folks that legitimately own the material.
And then there's all sorts of fair use laws as well.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Your wrong MiniD -
Title 17 of the U.S. Code states that
- "it is illegal to make or distribute copies of copyrighted material without authorization" (Section 106). The only exception is the users' right to make a backup copy for archival purposes (Section 117).
Individuals have a right to make a backup copy of software if one is not provided by the manufacturer.
Seems pretty clear to me that the user is entitled to a backup, basically to protect HIS investment.
Yup
section 117 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000117----000-.html)
-
I'm with Skuzzy in all this I'm afraid. I think overzealous copyright and DRM stifle innovation and make the whole world a lot less fun! The dedicated pirates will always pirate. In the real world a friend will give me a copy of the latest Bob Dylan CD. If I like it I'll go out and buy a proper copy. I think that's how most people operate. Artists and writers make most from their contracts and performances and are entitled to patent and protect their ideas. However greatest innovation and enterprise comes from ideas going out into the world and being allowed to grow. What annoys people most is not being acknowleged as having contributed. Like Skuzzy I copy CD's to play in the milking parlour or the car or onto my mp3 player. I really am not going to flog copies out of the back of my car. I believe I am typical rather than eccentric.
Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about but it's what I feel in my guts.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Your wrong MiniD -
Title 17 of the U.S. Code states that
- "it is illegal to make or distribute copies of copyrighted material without authorization" (Section 106). The only exception is the users' right to make a backup copy for archival purposes (Section 117).
The cornell link and your link say two different things, so I went to the government link (http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t17t20+23+0++%28Right%29%20%20AND%20%28%2817%29%20ADJ%20USC%29%3ACITE%20AND%20%28USC%20w%2F10%20%28117%29%29%3ACITE%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20) (Dunno if that long link will work).
It supports the statements on the cornell site that do not contain the phrase "the users' right" anywhere. More accurately, it states:
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an
infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make
or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that
computer program provided:
That is exactly what I said above. Using the term "it is the users' right..." implies that the software company must enable this. The phrase quoted does not. Do you see the difference?
-
Link didn't work. Go to: http://uscode.house.gov/search/criteria.shtml and search for Title 17, section 117. It will bring up the link.
-
edit: oh never mind it's just not worth it in here.
-
Anyone else think a really, really accomplished troll started this thread?
-
Blockbuster has previously viewed DVDs on sale, 4 for $20.00.
NOT
-
Originally posted by Benny Moore
Anyone else think a really, really accomplished troll started this thread?
Skuzzy?
-
wait...I thought this was a piracy discussion, mainly - where I could download the latest new apps and games and their appropriate CD / DVD cracks and patches.
Geesh, this thread is NO fun! :(
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Ah... the word I was looking for has finally crept in. "Enthusiasts". That word is a little different than "regular users". I do enjoy watching the doom and gloom conversations morph into something a little more realistic.
Just to recap:
Backup = Load on multiple devices so I can listen to it on all of them
Regular user = Enthusiast
Gotcha. [/QUOTE
No it's a total miss.
It's not only about enthusiasts - its just them who get hit the most. Through that it damages sales the most because the enthusiasts are the biggest spenders.
What about price fixing, monopoly and illegal business practises?
Why shouldn't a user have a right to make several copies to use in several machines in his _own use_?
The licensing says we do not own the physical media or the content on it. Why does the content provider refuse to replace the damaged media for printing cost? Does your car dealership force you to buy another car every time it breaks? No, they fix it.
-
Wow.. no arguing with that MrRipley. You've thrown out every bit of rhetoric in the book and I can just think... wow.
-
Mini D, you call anything anyone says contrary to you "rhetoric." Yet hard proof and professional opinion alike have been given to you, mislabelled by you, and tossed aside. You speak as a lawyer does, using double-speak and twisted logic.
I would like to know what makes Mini D claim to take this absurd position. Perhaps he really is serious about it; in that case, he surely holds a high position in a record company or some similar large, corrupt corporation. Shame on you, Mini D. I hope that someday you will repent of your greed and your dishonesty. If less people were like you, this world could be a much better place.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Wow.. no arguing with that MrRipley. You've thrown out every bit of rhetoric in the book and I can just think... wow.
"Joo keep using dat word... I do not t'ink it means what you t'ink it means..." - Inygo Montoya
-
Hey, do you own the intellectual rights to that story, Krusty? Huh? Pirate! Piracy, I say!
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Wow.. no arguing with that MrRipley. You've thrown out every bit of rhetoric in the book and I can just think... wow.
Same could be said of you minid ;)
After all this discussion about DRM, at the end of the day in the most piracy infested markets in the world (Eastern Europe), what did the movie industry do? Did they choose the path of DRM, or did they choose to provide content faster and cheaper?
and what does their decision tell us minid?
-
He probably won't answer you, Vulcan. He's not once addressed any of the points which poke obvious holes in his arguments; he just goes around them and takes shots at the easier ones.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Same could be said of you minid ;)
After all this discussion about DRM, at the end of the day in the most piracy infested markets in the world (Eastern Europe), what did the movie industry do? Did they choose the path of DRM, or did they choose to provide content faster and cheaper?
and what does their decision tell us minid?
Low quality sells in russia? You seem to think they're now making more money there. I bet they aren't making any different than they were before. Combating piracy, even at a loss is worth it there since it's the gateway for piracy on the internet. Whadya think?
I'm not spewing anti-piracy rhetoric vulcan. What mr ripley has said was the biggest bunch of crap posted in this thread... even worse than the 1's and 0's statement. But that is, I guarantee, what every single other person posting in this thread is convinced of. Price fixing, illegal buisness practices... come on. That is pure rhetoric. It doesn't even merit an argument because it's so pathetic.
The simple truth is that people will protect their products. The simple truth is that everyone wants more for less. The simple truth is that the two will not find a common ground. That is not an evil conspiracy. That is not rampant consumerism. It's just the way it is.
There is no saint in this scenario. There is no villian either. Actions have brought about other actions. This is simple cause and effect. That is not rhetoric, that is fact.
-
Why you guys think you can have a rational discussion with such an irrational person is interesting.
-
See Rule #6
-
BTW skuzzy, ask HiTech what he thought of freebirds some day.
-
What Vista will do is finally pave the way for a real alternative to Microsoft. Personally I couldn't be happier. The product people will say no to is Vista.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
See Rule #6
How droll! Skuzzy's been extremely fair, even lenient, throughout this entire thread (as well as his overall moderation). I've been banned from my share of forums, and I tell you that you will be hard-pressed to find more even-handed moderation than that of the folks here. You, on the other hand, have been dishonest and rude throughout this entire thread, to such a degree that if I were in charge, you would be permanently banned (which is why I'm not a moderator).
Next time you want to complain about power abuse, maybe you should make your way around a few forums to see some real power abuse is. I'm telling you, this isn't it.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Price fixing, illegal buisness practices... come on. That is pure rhetoric. It doesn't even merit an argument because it's so pathetic.
Errr what about that payout the all major RIAA members had to pay a few years back for the price fixing of music CD's in the US?
Music Industry Settles Price-Fixing Lawsuit For US$67.4 Million
by Raena Armitage, 11:00 AM EDT, October 1st, 2002
Slashdot reported last night that after two years, a price-fixing lawsuit brought against the major music companies has finally been settled for US$67.4 million. The lawsuit, brought by 43 states and commonwealths of the United States, said that the companies had exchanged subsidized advertising for retailers in return for their agreement not to sell CDs below a certain price, and that the practice had artificially inflated the cost of CDs from 1995 to 2000. A Reuters story indicates that the companies have agreed to cease the practice and also to distribute US$75.7 million of CDs to US organizations, in addition to the cash payout mentioned above. A USA Today story goes into detail:
Still got your rose tinted glasses on minid?
-
I was going to post something in this thread, but after reading the last few posts by MiniD, I can see there is no point.
-
See Rule #5
-
See Rules #2, #5
-
Let's keep it on topic folks.
-
The opinions expressed in the topic are those of the posters and are not necessarily basses of facts or law, but the posters opinions that you must agree with.
:rofl sorry i had to :rofl
-
Dammit. He went and spun around three times and turned into Wonder Moderator :)
-
See? I told you this place is moderated fairly, Midi D; he just removed two posts which were blasting you.
-
Sweet vulcan... you've brought up a settled lawsuit. Any that went the other way? Where is napster... do you remember that organization? You are still using instances to explain the norm while insisting that the norm on the other side is anything but. That's just odd.
-
[Enter Mini D stage left. Enter Judge stage right. Judge sits down]
Mini D: Corporations are honest; there is no such thing as price fixing.
Judge: I hearby find this corporation guilty of price fixing.
Mini D: Well, that's an isolated case! It's not the norm. Normally, corporations are honest.
[Audience laughs. Curtain falls.]
-
Something as harmless looking as region codes are nothing but the industry limiting free competition. They've fixed the prices on different levels on different continents and the region codes are there to make sure people are not buying their media from the cheapest provider, or at earlyest release time.
This is necessary because globally the profit margins in cd/dvd sales are marginal up to the extent of limiting competition. The price differences between countries is a result of central pricing, not normal competitive practises.
I know a couple audio/video retailers so that's straight from the horses mouth. On the rare cases where actual discounts have been made, it's a question of the provider selling the goods with a negative profit to attract customers - hoping they'll buy something more when they enter the shop. It's called milk advertising here (sell milk on a negative profit, gain from the candybars customers buy on the side).
No matter where you go within a country, a new cd from an artist will cost the same on $1-2 scale. There are no competing providers, no small studios releasing cheaper copies of the same music God forbid bigger ones. Interenstingly enough when cd was first introduced to replace LP, consumers got a promise that once sales went up the cd price will drop back to LP price levels or below because of cheaper production costs. Since that promise cd prices have gone up about 40% and the LP still costs about a quarter of a comparative cd - despite having higher printing costs and expensive logistics.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Sweet vulcan... you've brought up a settled lawsuit. Any that went the other way? Where is napster... do you remember that organization? You are still using instances to explain the norm while insisting that the norm on the other side is anything but. That's just odd.
ahh huh...
Originally posted by Mini D
Price fixing, illegal buisness practices... come on. That is pure rhetoric. It doesn't even merit an argument because it's so pathetic.
I'm suprised you replied, 24 hours earlier it didn't even merit an argument...
-
See Rules #4, #5
-
Here is one of several essays at a site about "piracy" and DRM written from an author's viewpoint. One of the key points is that it is inappropriate to use the word "piracy" in the discussion, since the definition of piracy and copyright infringement are not the same. Ironically, the word "piracy" appears in the title of this thread and is now used commonly in articles and discussions, thanks to a little social engineering by those who instigated DRM.
Link >> (http://preview.baens-universe.com/articles/matterprin?PHPSESSID=cbc1b50561a4f58af3d79b60519e2209)
Note: there a many essays on the topic by the author.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
One of the key points is that it is inappropriate to use the word "piracy" in the discussion, since the definition of piracy and copyright infringement are not the same.
Excellent comment! Just because I want to backup something I legally purchased, does not mean I need to run out and buy a parrot, eyepatch, and start rambling piraty missives.
Arrrggg...
-
Originally posted by Rolex
Here is one of several essays at a site about "piracy" and DRM written from an author's viewpoint. One of the key points is that it is inappropriate to use the word "piracy" in the discussion, since the definition of piracy and copyright infringement are not the same. Ironically, the word "piracy" appears in the title of this thread and is now used commonly in articles and discussions, thanks to a little social engineering by those who instigated DRM.
Link >> (http://preview.baens-universe.com/articles/matterprin?PHPSESSID=cbc1b50561a4f58af3d79b60519e2209)
Note: there a many essays on the topic by the author.
Skuzzy made the title of the thread, not me.
And... vulcan:
I never said the RIAA was loaded with saints. I said there were no saints in the situation. Citing RIAA shortcomings does nothing to excuse the actions of others. Absolutely nothing. If you don't like a product, don't buy it. If you think the price is too high, don't buy it.
-
Originally posted by republic
Excellent comment! Just because I want to backup something I legally purchased, does not mean I need to run out and buy a parrot, eyepatch, and start rambling piraty missives.
Arrrggg...
But... we still can, right? If we want to?
ARGH! 'Tis a piratical adventure of mayhem, says I!
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Citing RIAA shortcomings does nothing to excuse the actions of others. Absolutely nothing. If you don't like a product, don't buy it. If you think the price is too high, don't buy it.
This is what consumers have been doing for years already. Guess what, the reduction in sales will give RIAA/MPAA all the more reasons to push restrictive legislation on consumers. Hell I wouldn't be surprised if they will soon manage to introduce a mandatory quota for a month (buy 4 cd's a month for $25.99 a piece or else..).
Luckily there are still unbribed people left: Digital fair use bill introduced to congress (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/posttech/2007/02/digital_fair_use_bill_introduc.html)
-
Now... wait a minute. I thought that freely exchanging music helped sales. Are you suggesting that sales might have dropped recently?
Amazing how that turns depending on the point you're trying to make.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Now... wait a minute. I thought that freely exchanging music helped sales. Are you suggesting that sales might have dropped recently?
Amazing how that turns depending on the point you're trying to make.
They haven't dropped a bit, the growth has declined slightly going hand in hand with the price raises. Amazing how you try to twist consumer protest for something it's not. The only reason why sales MIGHT actually drop is when consumers finally get enough of the bullying they're getting.
Truly revolting.
Free exchange would help music sales unless consumers would start to protest against the corporations, all the law suits, extortion and overpricing. Free services like Pandora help people to discover artists and guess what, buy their albums after listening them digitally for free.
I haven't bought any media related purchase for 3 last years as a direct protest of the industry practises. That's 3 years of missing enthusiast shopping. And I'm not alone.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Now... wait a minute. I thought that freely exchanging music helped sales. Are you suggesting that sales might have dropped recently?
Amazing how that turns depending on the point you're trying to make.
I would say that the reduced sales, at least on the music side, is from consumer's new power to CHOOSE what they want. I nolonger have to buy an entire 16.00+ cd to get the one of two songs I really want. I can go on iTunes or the many other alternatives and buy only what I want, for .99 each...or the whole cd for 9.99.
On the movie industry side...I would ask the studios to look at the mediocre movies they have been releasing. I haven't been to the theater in a very long time...for no reason other than that there has been nothing worth seeing. Movies may be losing money, but traditional TV is basking in the aura of DVD sales. Several series have been saved because of DVD sales, including one of my favorites "The Office".
The RIAA is losing their control of the market, so they are panicking. An artist can create their music, record it, and publish it themselves through iTunes. No need for a record label.
-
If a drop in sales corresponded to a drop in piracy, you'd be right. But when a drop in sales corresponds to an increase in piracy, you don't have a leg to stand on.
You are starting to slowly grasp the concept of cause and effect. Eventually you will even understand why piracy gives the RIAA the power to get any legislation passed they deam necessary to "protect their product".
If consumption was dropping with sales they wouldn't have an argument.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
You are starting to slowly grasp the concept of cause and effect.
Your attempts at appearing superior are amusing, but does the bravado of your argument mask a lack of substance?
Do you have some sort of unbiased source for this rampant increase in piracy you speak of? Piracy in the United States where the RIAA's legislation will have an effect. Not piracy in a nation which has never, nor will ever, care about US copyright laws.
I've yet to see a record label go under because of lack of profit. I've yet to see a Brittany Spears actually do an honest day's work....but no matter.
For the artist, the new digital delivery is a boon. One artist I listen to (Derek Webb) allowed his latest cd to be downloaded for free for a limited time, and allowed those downloaded mp3's to be shared freely. Over 80,000 free copies were downloaded, and who knows how many shared after that. Yet...this artist still survives, despite being a relative unknown.
Piracy is real. I'm not arguing that. Piracy should be fought....but not at the expense of the rest of us who willingly pay for our media. Why should those who pay, be forced to pay more...while those who steal...will always be able to steal?
There is a balance, and my argument is that intrusive DRM, (Starforce, vastly decreased performance, crippled functionality, ect) is not the answer. Do you not agree?
How many rights, as a consumer, should we give up to protect a corporation? And to a lesser extent, the artist? This is the question who's answer will effect us greatly in the years to come.
-
Let's give this a try:
Is there any music or video that you cannot download for free from the internet?
You want data to show you that it can be done? Why? Why not just try it. Get bittorent and see what is accessible to you. Hell, just use google and see what you can get. Look and see what's available on the uunet. Don't even try to pretend that piracy is just a myth and nobody really does it.
And record labels go under all the time.
Accessibility and availability replace the need to pay for a product. This is basic economics. It's not some outlandish stretch of the imagination.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
If a drop in sales corresponded to a drop in piracy, you'd be right. But when a drop in sales corresponds to an increase in piracy, you don't have a leg to stand on.
You are starting to slowly grasp the concept of cause and effect. Eventually you will even understand why piracy gives the RIAA the power to get any legislation passed they deam necessary to "protect their product".
If consumption was dropping with sales they wouldn't have an argument.
Prove to me that the drop in sales was caused by piracy. Because I have data for you that shows a direct correspondence between drop in sales and increased prices. This goes according to every natural law of market.
But for some reason all the Mini D:s of this planet scream murder when they can't raise their profit infinately just by boosting up product prices.
Hint: When sales numbers go down, any REASONABLE business drops price to get volume.
-
Now why would I need to prove that to you? That's the part that you simply do not understand.
1) Is there piracy?
2) Is there a drop in sales?
You can cite other reasons for a drop in sales all you want, you cannot dismiss that piracy impacts it. Any attempt to do so comes off as apologetic. Once again, this is why the RIAA is able to get legislation passed.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Let's give this a try:
Is there any music or video that you cannot download for free from the internet?
Show me something in real life that can't be stolen? Other than say...a building. Real life objects have DRM of a kind. Your car needs a key, stores have the little magnetic devices to detect if your stealing.
What I'm saying is, should we have to provide our SSN, Fingerprint, retinal scan, voice imprint, and blood test every time we want to start our car? Must we have a full body cavity search every time we exit a store? That is a real life representation of what intrusive DRM does.
Simply because something CAN be done, doesn't mean we need a wide ranging law/policy to make sure it never ever happens. I can use a gun to kill someone, outlaw guns/special restriction on guns? Hey, I can use a fork too...outlaw fork/special restrictions on fork purchases? So now I'll be put on homeland security lists because I've purchased 2 boxes of flatware within a month?
Ridiculous? Very. But if you are to apply real world ideas to the digital world...why not apply them back?
And again we go around the real issue. DRM...what is acceptable, what is too intrusive?
-
MiniD
How is it others have to provide evidence yet you seldom do? You make sweeping comments yet fail to back them up.
-
If the Record Companies are going under, its based on their own poor sales, not anything Napster or the like did.
Just read the Entertainment side of the news from time to time, you'll see all the bad investments these companies make. They gave Whitney Huston a huge advance a while back, in the millions...and her CD was a flop.
And those who buy CDs...well, Sony gave them a nice Trojan a while back.
You do have some good performers out there that do sell records. But you also have a lot out there that land huge record contracts and dont sell. Or, big executives who get large salaries yet do not produce.
iTunes is something I took a while to warm up to. I'd rather pay 99 cents for the songs I like versus $16 for a CD with one song i like on it.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Now why would I need to prove that to you? That's the part that you simply do not understand.
1) Is there piracy?
2) Is there a drop in sales?
You can cite other reasons for a drop in sales all you want, you cannot dismiss that piracy impacts it. Any attempt to do so comes off as apologetic. Once again, this is why the RIAA is able to get legislation passed.
That's just the point - the record companies are losing billions in sales because of 'piracy' at the same time the sales grow each year. Read especially the part that says 'grow'.
The growth has declined a tiny bit after the price raises - but the number is not even near the 'billion' number the industry is 'losing' because of 'piracy'.
In answer to your question 1: There is piracy. Just recently a UN cargo vessel got hijacked on African coast. File sharing is not piracy.
2) There is a slight decline in growth of sales, triggered by quite heavy price raises in both movie booths and digital media. If the 'lost' numbers of filesharing would be added to current sales rate, a miraculous 50% boost would be seen. Which is a direct indication that the numbers are far from realistic if even true at all.
-
Personaly, I think the Record industries problems are not so much illegal activities, but the fact that there product is to expensive.
Somewhere in time, it became the norm, if a person has a hit song, they seem to feel that they deserve to live the life of a sultant. Mansions, Servants, expensive cars, world travel. The Music Execs want a large share of the wealth as well.
Why is that I can buy a hit movie for $10 that costs Millions to produce, Yet if I want a CD of a so-so average band, its going to cost me $15-20. That CD could be produced for well under a dollar.
Most folks I know, Even if they have the ability to aquire a free copy of a movie, will op to buy it from the store. it comes with the packaging, booklet and anything else. Its worth the money.
Same goes for Software, Most folks will buy what they want and get all the documention and manuals and such, again its worth the money.
Music, Well... Personaly I dont think its worth the money. If they lowered the cost of a music CD to say a few bucks, Most people would just buy it, and get the case, and all the extras. Sales would go thru the roof. (think of HTC when it lowered its price)
As I have read thru this I was thinking about Bottled Water. How does that compair to Digital Media. Its something I can get for Free from Nature. Yet many pay for it. If I drink a glass from the Tap, am I stealing profits from the bottled water company? If I refill the bottle and put it in my fridge, am I making Illegal copys? What if I give a refilled bottle to a friend? What If I let the MailMan drink from my Tap, am I sharing illegaly?? Mind Boggleing ;)
This is a good thread and inspires thought. I dont think DMA is the best answer to the issues of file sharing and piracy. I think providing content at a resonable price would do more.