bit-tech.net

Why Intel's DRM strategy is flawed

Comments 1 to 25 of 37

Reply
wharrad 9th March 2006, 02:40 Quote
When will there be good DRM news? Every month or so there's a little squeaze on the consumer - evil evil people
Firehed 9th March 2006, 02:50 Quote
Do see my sig.
Who's sick of UCE? Huh? Oh yeah, unsolicited comemrcial email. Self Promoted Advertising Messages. SPAM.
DRM? I think CRAP is a bit more catchy. You walk up to joe consumer and ask about the DRM, and he'll be clueless, just as he would be if you asked him about UCE. But ask about spam, and he hates the stuff. Does he know what it stands for? No. I had to google that one, but everyone knows what it is.

We just need a catchy acronym for HDCP, and apparently this now. Yay... what a bright future. Any ideas?

I'd expect some good crap news in the next few weeks though. With HDDVDs coming to market later this month, you can bet HDCP will be cracked before tax day (April 15).
Arkuden 9th March 2006, 03:57 Quote
great article i must say. Many things ive never considered or paired with the information I was already aware of.

Our world is changing so rapidly with technology that becomes ground breaking every day. Things that boggle your mind are released but at the same time are choking the life and money out of the user. I cant imagine anything getting better becuase a happy user makes for a sad stock owner losing money.
N/A 9th March 2006, 04:02 Quote
What?

I thought it was an horrible article... one sided and filled with too much bias.

Intel only creates the hardware on which software runs on... how do you expect intel to stop malicous code? Hasn't software companies like microsoft or norton been trying to do that all along?

When reading the article, you're making a lot of jumps to conclusion..... All companies' goals are to make a better experience for the consumers.... which company does not try and do that? You're saying because intel uses DTCP-IP, and you think that DTCP-IP is bad for the consumer experience, therefore intel is trying to make the experience bad for viiv computer users.... this is the conclusions you're making.

You didn't really offer intel any suggestions... only that we should reject DRM becuase it's going to be hacked anyways... , what kind of conclusion is that? It's like saying we should all go kill ourselves because in the end we're all going to die... or don't clean your room becuase entropy will eventually make it dirty again...

Maybe it's reading Ed. Striglio (www.overclockers.com) too much, but your articles seems pretty biased and in general incoherent.

"If Intel really wants to make sure that Viiv is a great user experience, it should be working on our side. If Intel really wants to make Viiv a great user experience, it should be making sure that our legal rights to use content are protected. If it really wants to make Viiv a great user experience, it should define a certain set of content management criteria that are necessary for a great user experience - such as the ability to easily be moved, used, copied and backed up - and should then make sure that the content industry adheres by its standards, not vice versa"

what is "our side"? Sure you're talking about using the content legally, but the thing is the companies started on "our side" but it failed as we search for illegal ways of downloading content. How do you expect intel to be on "our side" when it's ILLEGAL downloading they're trying to stop?

You make it seem if DRM infringes on our human rights... when we're the one who broke the law getting content for free.... isn't that just stealing and ethically worst then DRM?

Intel want's the content from hollywood to be played on their viiv systems. Hollywood does not need intel as much as intel needs hollywood... who would want a new computer that can't even play HD-DVD movies when a HD-DVD player could play it... that'll really do great for HTPC. Isn't Intel trying to help us when we're trying to "easily...moved, used, copied and backed up" our data with DTCP-IP? What has AMD done to try and make moving DRM between computers easier?

There has been a lot of "boycott intel/ hollywood because of DRM" fourms lately... and I believe what ed says... that no one's going to really do that. We've always enjoyed movies, it has become too integral in our culture that if we're forced to buy DRM ridden content we will rather buy it then just sit at home and do nothing.

Since Intel is this evil DRM pushing company, what about AMD? or Microsoft? or even Apple? They're ALL going to be supporting DRM (and in your point of view, anyone who supports DRM is DRM from your analysis that DTCP-IP is DRM). They all support DRM and content hollywood is pushing becasue we're addicted to it, and hollywood does have the power... so if you're going to rant at Intel, you should also rant about AMD, Microsoft, etc... as they're all going to support DRM.


I hate DRM, but I know in the end, I will yield to it, as I love hi-definition movies and such.... as will the majority of the people. So what if DRM will get hacked? they'll make a new version of DRM every time... just like PSP firmwares...and then new movies will automatically require new DRM algorithms (possibly re-writing to bios)...

My conclusion? Don't rant about DRM, it's going to come, Hollywood basically said, if you want computers to play our movies, it has to be DRM enabled. Our demand is driving DRM. DRM is coming, no matter how much you hate DRM. Sure, a few bad apples in society logged onto bit torrent and download games and movies, therefore the entire society has to pay for it... haven't we already learned this from kindergarden?

Don't call me Intel fanboy as I run on AMD (XP 2500 @ 2.4 :'( ) and planning to upgrade to X2 3800
Kaze22 9th March 2006, 04:39 Quote
N/A I totally agree with you the article is very biased and somewhat narrow sighted. Just another evil DRM piece, and I thought I was gonna find some real meat in that long rant, I guess I expected a lot more from a chief editor lol.
Like I said before DRM is not the key to the future of network distribution, as the term fair use does not exist in the human psyche we will simply abuse until there's nothing left. This is a given.
The only way to secure the future of digital network distribution is through the elimination anonymity in cyber space.
Once we are no longer anonymous in the digital world we will be forced to be responsible for our actions. Only then will we naturally abide by the ideals of fair use.
I think there’s a common misconception with DRM, in reality owners of digital properties fear not the sharing and transferring of content amongst our own media devices or that of our family members, what they fear is the free flowing non centralized distribution method brought out by the infinite freedom and infinite anonymity granted to us by cyber space.
Take away that anonymity, and the cyber world will become the same as the physical world and all actions conducted in cyber space will beget real world consequences.
How many people will download/steal films, music or games if you weren't anonymous? If every action in cyberspace is forcibly marked and logged with your imprint (Not talking about IP) we would all learn to be more responsible.
Some people say that Cyber Space should be free and that the internet should remain a haven for freedom of exchange in data, but I say The Internet like the real world can never be truly free, in order for us to reap the benefits of this vastly expanding new universe we need order and in achieving that order we may need to give up some rudimentary levels of freedom starting with anonymity.
Pegasus 9th March 2006, 05:14 Quote
The war of standards.
Before the IBM PC we had..... lots of different CPU designs, lots of different Operating Systems.... and Appel II.

Before the VHS tape system we had..... lots of different Tape formats, and the video store had to have dedicated shelves carrying, VHS, Betamax and...

Before Windows we had..... several attempts of making a better user interace than a Text based Interface (DOS), do you remember GEOS for Commodore64, Amiga, Atari 512? Did you ever know about the many compiler dependent DOS add-ons?

Before Java we had..... (well, we don't really have Java yet, as the jury is still out on the device independent OS'es)

Before USB we had..... the serial port (RS-232), the parallel port, RS-485 interfaces, you name it - someone had an answer.

Before the PCI bus we had..... ISA bus, VESA bus, EISA bus, MCA bus. It was a mess, seen from a users re-cycling/upgrading point of view.


However none of any of these standards cover 100% of the market, and thank goodnes for that, otherwise it might stop or significantly slow down the innovations of new and better solutions.


So about content management, we are bound to see different attempts, some good, some bad, some designed to fail, and.... one that will prevail.
Always níce to be able to bet on the one that will prevail.

Without knowing more about DTCP-IP than what Will Harries has told us here today, it does not seem to me that we have the finalized version of what will prevail.

There is however no doubt, that we do need secure protocols, that work well on-line as well as off-line and has a good management system for handling encryption keys when working off-line.
Does DTCP-IP provide this?

It may very well be that we will not get a stable CRAP (read: DRM) system, until all devices can go online whenever user rights are to be exercised (read: whenever keys have to be verified, something like the current https: protocol).
Malvolio 9th March 2006, 05:42 Quote
I'm only going to respond to a few major points that Kaze22 and N/A brought up, as I'm too tired after a long day at work to think too much.

Anyway, you're both stating that the article was far too biased: why? He brought up both sides of the argument, detailed why companies are doing what they're doing (and yes, he did talk about more than one company), and stated his views on it.

Yeah, sure, it is obvious that it was written from the viewpoint of somebody whom dislikes DRM, but yet you don't seem to see yourself as "bias", yet it is painfully obvious that you're both centered around a future that can only exist between the narrow margins of DRM.

By the way, companies don't overly care about the "illegal" downloading (which most of it isn't illegal - TV shows and NON-COPYRIGHTED content is not illegal to download), what they do care about is their profit from securing you to only one type of system (mini-disk anybody?). What is better from a companies stand point: stopping a lot of people who would never buy anything from you anyway from downloading your content, or forcing hundreds of thousands of people to ONLY buy your content?

I don't know about you, but if I had the option, I would definitely go for the second one ;)

As well, the argument is not that DRM - or DTCP-IP - is useless because it will be hacked, the argument is that it's useless because it is taking away RIGHTS. So, what, you want to legally take some paid for content with you into your car? Ohh, too bad, the act is perfectly legal, but unfortunately my DRM system is illegal to get around, so you can't listen to the music you just bought anywhere except on the computer you bought the music on - too bad!
Quote:
Originally Posted by N/A
What has AMD done to try and make moving DRM between computers easier?

Nothing publicly - which just happens to be an extremely smart PR move. Though I'm sure there has been work done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by N/A
Intel only creates the hardware on which software runs on... how do you expect intel to stop malicous code? Hasn't software companies like microsoft or norton been trying to do that all along?

Congratulations on contradicting yourself. Intel is making hardware AND software to protect the content. But yet you still want other hardware companies to implement hardware solutions, when you say that there are no hardware solutions?! That doesn't quite work there.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaze22
How many people will download/steal films, music or games if you weren't anonymous?

About the same as there is now. Unfortunately we don't live in a utopian society (as you so bluntly point out), so even if nothing is anonymous, and your digital signature is recorded with everything, then more people will start stealing ID's, causing even more havoc, producing more BAD piracy (IE: there will be MORE selling of illegal content, as not as many people can do it, so it'll push the market for illegal content providers).

So you want everything in your life controlled by somebody else? Go live in china or iran, I'm sure you'll fit right in. Unfortunately, this is north america, and I enjoy being FREE, so I will fight for it, along with many other people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaze22
Take away that anonymity, and the cyber world will become the same as the physical world and all actions conducted in cyber space will beget real world consequences.
If every action in cyberspace is forcibly marked and logged with your imprint (Not talking about IP) we would all learn to be more responsible.
Some people say that Cyber Space should be free and that the internet should remain a haven for freedom of exchange in data, but I say The Internet like the real world can never be truly free, in order for us to reap the benefits of this vastly expanding new universe we need order and in achieving that order we may need to give up some rudimentary levels of freedom starting with anonymity.

"The internet can never truly be free" (well, simplified version of what you said, but still in context). Look around you now, where you are, how things have been for the past 15 or so years that the internet has been around. Do you see any mass chaos? Do you see crime happening consistently, to everybody, all the time? Yeah, sure, there are some bad apples, EXACTLY like there are in real life (hello? Real people do have to be behind a computer, as unfortunately it can't exactly use itself).

Maybe there does need to be some better community control of the internet, but making it into something that is completely controlled, restricted, and where our freedoms are null and void is not the way to do it. ANY government will make ANYTHING worse (and yes, a controlling body for the internet would be a government - the internet would become a new nation with a governing body).

As the internet exists now, you either choose an identity for yourself and make a name, or you can go about contributing under dubious aliases, or even just leech of everybody and everything. This will happen, and it's a fact of life, but you want to know something amazing? Human history has for a longer time existed under almost complete anonymity (you don't like who you are? Go to another town where they don't know you and make a new identity). Only within the last couple hundred years have we as a species become more and more controlled.

Technology is restricting us unduly, and those of us who are able to see how wrong this could turn out, also can see how well it can.

I agree with you though Kaze, people should take more responsibility for what they do, but having some artificial governmental body who is just going to waste money is not the way to do it. It has to start somewhere, it has to start somehow, what better time then now? What better place than here? (yeah, I'm listening to some RATG, heh) What we need to do is take this massive responsibility upon us, and start doing something about it.

Community is the answer.
Kaze22 9th March 2006, 07:15 Quote
I do live in China on occasions I travel back and forth from Asia and North American LOL, and honestly I kinda like the Chinese government. But thats another door that we don't wanna open today if ever, lets just say I see reasoning behind a government that you may dispise and leave it at that.
As for the net, I never said we should all be ruled by a hirarchy of net nation guards, I simply mean't that for 15 years we've been rolling around in the dirt sort of speak like you said humanity has been living in anonymity for ages, the dark ages, the feudal ages, the imperial ages, the stone ages and so on and so fourth but as history has shown us absolute freedom and anonymity has lead us only to chaos and destruction and in order for a greater part of society to live in order we must have rules and regulations and most of all the lack of anonymity.
The internet needs order, it's this lack of order due to it's infancy in growth that has begun to deconstruct some basic values of society. What a person may never do in real life is tolerated or even condoned on the net because we hide behind our masks of freedom our so called deserved anonymity. I say it's gotta end, regardless of what shadow network emerges due to the stripping of internet anonymity; regardless of how it may infringe upon our god given rights to be self governing; I still say control is long over due.
To what degree is something that society needs to slowly grow into, but this abuse of cyber space is starting to take its toll and it's not just the intellectual property infringements it's many things that I don't even want to get into.
In closing, if humanity is not even willing to sacrifice our anonymity to create a better future than I pity the generations after us. For the generations before us have had to forsake much, much more than that for us to live with the freedoms we have today.
Each generation needs to make a sacrifice for the future it may be our turn soon. I don't know about you but I'm willing to forsake free movies, games, porn and the fun of anonymous flaming for the sake of the bigger picture.
Malvolio 9th March 2006, 08:03 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaze22
I do live in China on occasions I travel back and forth from Asia and North American LOL, and honestly I kinda like the Chinese government. But thats another door that we don't wanna open today if ever, lets just say I see reasoning behind a government that you may dispise and leave it at that.
Good to know that. :) I'm happy for you that you happen to enjoy an overtly controlling, ignorant, and generally non-functioning government. If that is what you like, then so be it, I'm not here to tell you how to live. My statements towards your government is completely my opinion, and I do not expect you to understand or agree to them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaze22
As for the net, I never said we should all be ruled by a hirarchy of net nation guards, I simply mean't that for 15 years we've been rolling around in the dirt sort of speak like you said humanity has been living in anonymity for ages, the dark ages, the feudal ages, the imperial ages, the stone ages and so on and so fourth but as history has shown us absolute freedom and anonymity has lead us only to chaos and destruction and in order for a greater part of society to live in order we must have rules and regulations and most of all the lack of anonymity.
Show me one situation in the world at any point in time, ever, period where any amount of control by any body (and yes, this body would HAVE to be in a hierarchy type setup, otherwise you give all power to just a couple people, and as I'm sure you'll agree, absolute power corrupts absolutely ;)). Every society has functioned (notice I'm not saying that it functioned well, or perfectly) to some moderate degree better than what we are doing now. The system of freedom has helped to foster the world we live in today, and as such it allowed the ability for people to innovate and be independent.

When you control an entire society, you stifle any innovation (that isn't directly state funded/mandated), and you create a society that is afraid of it's government, whom take too much power and begin controlling the society that gave them the power in the first place.

History has taught us that EVERY single time a people have given power to a single body, that body has taken far too much control, and ended up ruling over the populace with the people living in fear of the people in control.

There will be times and places where giving up some freedom and control to a body of people/person will be a good thing - I'm not denying that - but it will very quickly escalate into something that the populace can no longer control or do anything about.

Do you honestly want to live in fear of those whom control you? Or how about being so blinded by them that you are too stupid to fear them? I don't like that kind of future; I'm sorry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaze22
The internet needs order, it's this lack of order due to it's infancy in growth that has begun to deconstruct some basic values of society. What a person may never do in real life is tolerated or even condoned on the net because we hide behind our masks of freedom our so called deserved anonymity.
What?! So, you're saying that because you and a couple people you know don't like the fact that I enjoy looking at something questionable, that the information should be denied to EVERYBODY?! Why don't we just cover up all the bad things that ever happen - you know, deny the holocaust, say that nuclear weapons never existed, that sort of thing - and instead we only allow people to think happy thoughts? Not that far of a leap from "basic values" to thought crime.

That scares me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaze22
I say it's gotta end, regardless of what shadow network emerges due to the stripping of internet anonymity; regardless of how it may infringe upon our god given rights to be self governing; I still say control is long over due.
To what degree is something that society needs to slowly grow into, but this abuse of cyber space is starting to take its toll and it's not just the intellectual property infringements it's many things that I don't even want to get into.
In closing, if humanity is not even willing to sacrifice our anonymity to create a better future than I pity the generations after us. For the generations before us have had to forsake much, much more than that for us to live with the freedoms we have today.
Each generation needs to make a sacrifice for the future it may be our turn soon. I don't know about you but I'm willing to forsake free movies, games, porn and the fun of anonymous flaming for the sake of the bigger picture.
I seriously hope my children and their children will never have to know the horror that is complete control over their life. I want my prodigy to know what it is to be free. If that means that there is a bit of chaos and crime, so what? There is a bloody prostitute standing on the corner outside my building, every night somebody is violently attacked on my block, and theft is rampant. You think internet chaos is bad?

Right now the internet is budding to be something awesome controlled by the people, not by a government. We - yes, you and me - are able to even debate about this because people like me defend the very right to be able to speak our mind.

I don't think the next generations fight will have any violence, I think it will be held in the digital world, and what we are doing now will dictate how it happens.





But back to DRM - I seriously needs to go away before Kaze's wish comes true :p
N/A 9th March 2006, 08:05 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malfoleo

Congratulations on contradicting yourself. Intel is making hardware AND software to protect the content. But yet you still want other hardware companies to implement hardware solutions, when you say that there are no hardware solutions?! That doesn't quite work there.

what?

When did I "want other hardware companies to implement hardware solutions?" for malicous code....

Will wrote that if malicous code attacks a viiv computer, the DTCP-IP is going to get screwed and it's going to offer bad experience therefore intel wants to give viiv consumers bad experience... I'm saying, all computers are giving off "bad experiences" due to malicous code (ie, virus, SPAM, etc)... that's why software companies such as microsoft and norton scan for malicous code or fixes the bugs.... I asked, what other hardware companies are doing to make DRM easier for the future.... nothing about malicous code. read carefully.

and ARE there hardware solutions to malicous code? NO. I didn't say that there were hardware solutions... only that Intel should not be made to seem if they offer bad experiences on Viiv machines just because of attacks from malcious code... as intel makes the hardware for software like microsoft (which the malicous code attacks) runs on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malfoleo

By the way, companies don't overly care about the "illegal" downloading (which most of it isn't illegal - TV shows and NON-COPYRIGHTED content is not illegal to download), what they do care about is their profit from securing you to only one type of system

Um.... have you been to bit torrent? I don't know about where you live or what kind of la la land you really think bit torrent is, but check the games section, or movies section, there are thousands of seeds and even more peers on these torrents... and that's each day... for each movie (popular ones)... and that equates over time a LOSS of money... for music and games too.... and are you saying those aren't copyrighted and that companies won't care if I download FEAR or HL2? I never said that non-copyrighted content was illegal to download so I don't know why you would mention that... I know people download shows like naruto (as I do too) but I also know people download a lot of COPYRIGHTED materials.... don't act like you don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malfoleo

what they do care about is their profit from securing you to only one type of system (mini-disk anybody?). What is better from a companies stand point: stopping a lot of people who would never buy anything from you anyway from downloading your content, or forcing hundreds of thousands of people to ONLY buy your content?

What does content have to do with the system of delivery? you're telling me about mini disks... SO WHAT?

It's the content we're talking about... in the future, as discussed in the article, we won't bother with these "types of system" (ie, mini-disk, UMD, CD, etc...) It's only pure streaming content from internet... so your point is invalid. these phyical media are will soon be forgotton as everything will be streamed... which is why we have DRM as without these physical media, how will the content providers make sure that the people only get the content if they paid for it? You're stuck in the mindset that If I have this CD, it proves that I paied for it. But in the future, where you don't pay for the CD and only stream the content, how will you prove you paid for it? this is why DRM has to exist. Oh yea, DRM like HDCP is universal... so there really isn't any benifit to any specific company like sony... as sony, universal studio's will all have DRM content. They KNOW that the end users hate DRM... but they also know that we like the movies and music more then we hate DRM, therefore we'll still buy the stuff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malfoleo

Yeah, sure, it is obvious that it was written from the viewpoint of somebody whom dislikes DRM, but yet you don't seem to see yourself as "bias", yet it is painfully obvious that you're both centered around a future that can only exist between the narrow margins of DRM.

So you're saying you're not biased? And it's not only me, have you dropped by www.overclockers.com? A highly respected site with articles by Ed Stroligo which seems sound and unbiased to me. I seriously see these threads EVERYWHERE about how people like you still think that if I get enough petitions, I can stop DRM. Or that I'm going to boycott hollywood and therefore stop DRM.

That's not going to happen.

If you're biased towards the "oh no DRM =evil" crowd, and I am biased towards the " I hate DRM but it is the future" crowd, the I guess we combined would create a non-biased thread about DRM.

Then you go on to saying DRM takes away our "right". well... sorry to break this to you, but your "right" depends on who's got the power. You want the media from hollywood. If all content now has DRM, would you still buy it? No one forces people to buy things with DRM, you just buy it becuase you love this new XXXXXXX be it songs or movies. Sure it only plays on only one computer... but who's to say that it's okay for content to play on a number of computers? "rights" are dynamic... and relative. for example, define human rights... it's not possible... it's just like saying type out the emotion happiness..... An analogy would be this. I made a podcast, it was free for first 5 episodes, then I ask you to pay to listen. you would initally think... hey? you're infinging on my rights as it was free... but then I would say... no it always costed money, but becasue I value you as a customer, I gave you a free 5 episode.

don't talk to me about rights... I mean the US who always preaches about rights... even they use white phosphorous (banned by UN with US on the UN council too), or refuse to accept kyoto protocol (right of all human beings)... why? POWER... and hollywood has the power and they know you will buy the content with or without DRM. As you said, we don't live in a utopian world... so stop living in your own world which says that people only download non-copyrighted content and that we'll stop DRM only becuase it's not "fair" and because it infringes on our "rights" as this is not a utopia, and the content providers are a tyranny. meaning hollywood doesn't care about fairness... only need a profit knowing you're not illegally downloading the content that they produce...which ironically is fair for them.
N/A 9th March 2006, 08:28 Quote
I just read your post malfoleo.... and I sort of agree with both of you.

I do believe absolute power corrupts absolutly... but not always... not when you don't know you're being controlled. ie. Ants, or bees or wasps, or even your own cells (I'm a biology kind of guy) exhibit "superorganism" trait... in which that individual work under a "tyranny" the queen, or in the human example either your mind (brain) controlling the rest of your cells or your DNA controlling RNA production.

So In nature, total control/tyranny hierarchy does exist... and exist quite as well as I'm sure you've heard of the spreading and thriving of the "killer bees".

Anyways... seems you've turned this into a political post....

I'm chinese, but I'm from hong kong, and moved to canada before 1997 (reliquish of power by England). so don't call me some kind of communist.... but I see that you yourself is very biased about how "bad" china is by your statment of china being "overtly controlling, ignorant, and generally non-functioning government".

How can you say that? Have you been to china? or were you just relying on hollywood feed you about what china is? I find it ironical and similar to US citizens think us canadian's are all about lumberjacks and hocky and say "eh" after every sentence. You go on to say China is a non-fucntioning goverment. Would a non-fucntioning goverment be responsible for the Tiger economy? or the becoming of a super power? I really hate the stereotype people place an one another without any proof.... besides... if china was really that "evil" of a place... why would any investors invest in china? clearly it's not really that bad. china is ignorant? and what other country isn't? Even the US as mentiooned above still does not believe that CO2 emissons causes global warming therefore refuses to sign kyoto protocol... is that "ignorant" enough for you? it all has to do with power. US and China are both "ignorant" about the CO2 emissons becuase to stop emitting so much CO2 they would lose billions of dollars, and their economies would weaken. so they rather not do anything about it. But so what? Is any nation going to attack US or China ? No becuae they are super powers. Just like how the UN said no to US attacking Iraq... US still went and attacked Iraq.... it doesn't matter what the UN says... US holds the power... and that basically goverens the world. no real fairness.... I mean.. history is written by the winner

sheesh... and you call me biased

reading too many books by George Orwell? Equilibrium perhaps?
Malvolio 9th March 2006, 08:48 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by N/A
what?

When did I "want other hardware companies to implement hardware solutions?" for malicous code....

Will wrote that if malicous code attacks a viiv computer, the DTCP-IP is going to get screwed and it's going to offer bad experience therefore intel wants to give viiv consumers bad experience... I'm saying, all computers are giving off "bad experiences" due to malicous code (ie, virus, SPAM, etc)... that's why software companies such as microsoft and norton scan for malicous code or fixes the bugs.... I asked, what other hardware companies are doing to make DRM easier for the future.... nothing about malicous code. read carefully.
Read the article ;) Notice how it says the whole bit about malicious code making the whole DRM bit vulnerable, and that if you accidentally obtain the malicious code, that it will disable any ability you had to view any content you have ever bought? Yeah, DRM sure will make it easer for me to watch the next Fast and the Furious ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by N/A
and ARE there hardware solutions to malicous code? NO. I didn't say that there were hardware solutions... only that Intel should not be made to seem if they offer bad experiences on Viiv machines just because of attacks from malcious code... as intel makes the hardware for software like microsoft (which the malicous code attacks) runs on.
Uhh, YES. There are actually extensions in the latest A64's (and I believe most Intel CPU's) that will actually disallow certain types of malicious code from running. Or how about a hardware firewall? Amazing!

But anyway, the article clearly states WHY Intel’s strategy is flawed (and no, it is not exclusively because of malicious code, so stop bringing that up). And besides, the DRM technology was mainly developed from a software side (as far as I understand it anyway, so I may be wrong)

Quote:
Originally Posted by N/A
Um.... have you been to bit torrent? I don't know about where you live or what kind of la la land you really think bit torrent is, but check the games section, or movies section, there are thousands of seeds and even more peers on these torrents... and that's each day... for each movie (popular ones)... and that equates over time a LOSS of money... for music and games too.... and are you saying those aren't copyrighted and that companies won't care if I download FEAR or HL2? I never said that non-copyrighted content was legal to download so I don't know why you would mention that... I know people download shows like naruto (as I do too) but I also know people download a lot of COPYRIGHTED materials.... don't act like you don't.
Yes, I use bit torrent almost daily. Most of the time I use it for completely legal reasons (linux ISO's, freely distributed programs, TV shows, ect), but I am in no way innocent (that I EVER stated I was, in-fact I never said anything in either direction). But please tell me how bit torrent can only be used for illegal activities, and that it is mainly used as such? I'm sure that if places like isohunt.com (whom the owner of doesn't condone any illegal activities) were mainly used for illegal downloading, something drastic would be done.

But yes, companies do care that people download their stuff illegally, but when have you ever seen ANY DRM EVER work in disabling anybody, anywhere from obtaining something illegally? In fact, when has law ever stopped a determined (and smart) criminal from obtaining anything illegally?

Yeah, didn't think so.

Fact is: copying digital information does not directly relate to a decrease in cost to the manufacturer of said content. Going out and stealing a physical item from said manufacturer is going to hurt their profits directly and immediately. There is a difference you know, which is why no court in the world has named copyright theft as "stealing". It is still and always has been Copyright Infringement (completely different).

Quote:
Originally Posted by N/A
What does content have to do with the system of delivery? you're telling me about mini disks... SO WHAT?
I was using an example. Sony made it so that you were very restricted as to what you could actually put on the minidisk, and what you could do with the files you owned. That is what DRM is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by N/A
It's the content we're talking about... in the future, as discussed in the article, we won't bother with these "types of system" (ie, mini-disk, UMD, CD, etc...) It's only pure streaming content from internet... so your point is invalid. these phyical media are will soon be forgotton as everything will be streamed... which is why we have DRM as without these physical media, how will the content providers make sure that the people only get the content if they paid for it? You're stuck in the mindset that If I have this CD, it proves that I paied for it. But in the future, where you don't pay for the CD and only stream the content, how will you prove you paid for it? this is why DRM has to exist.
So, you're stating that DRM has to exist due to lack of physical media? Well, I'll agree with you there, so long as it is only there to prove that I paid for the content, and not to say that I can't put perfectly legally obtained music onto my ipod.
Quote:
Originally Posted by N/A
Oh yea, DRM like HDCP is universal... so there really isn't any benifit to any specific company like sony... as sony, universal studio's will all have DRM content. They KNOW that the end users hate DRM... but they also know that we like the movies and music more then we hate DRM, therefore we'll still buy the stuff.
You're basically saying that all DRM is universal all the time ehh? Umm, NO. No company in their right mind would make their invasion of DRM universal! That would be stupid! You want people to buy more stuff from your company, not have the option to go to one of your competitors. Good business practice would be to lock your customers into your brand, and to continue making you money.

DRM is this tool.

Quote:
Originally Posted by N/A
So you're saying you're not biased? And it's not only me, have you dropped by www.overclockers.com? A highly respected site with articles by Ed Stroligo which seems sound and unbiased to me. I seriously see these threads EVERYWHERE about how people like you still think that if I get enough petitions, I can stop DRM. Or that I'm going to boycott hollywood and therefore stop DRM.
I'm not unbiased, I am extremely biased, and will protect my rights with extreme prejudice. I can say that I am 100% willing to defend my right to be who I want to be. But please stop bringing in other peoples arguments unless you can use them to back up your argument. The only thing the link you've provided proves is that the person there may be slightly less bias than I am. Woo. I'm happy for him, but who cares?

And you know what? If enough people like me get pissed off about this, something CAN be done. Amazingly enough, there are real people in a government appointed by people for the people. So obviously if you're seeing a lot of people whom are getting pissed, then there are a lot of people who don't like this, and some of these people are going to do something.

Oh, petitions can't stop DRM, boycotting isn't either. Nothing will stop it, until enough people wake up and realize what is happening with DRM, the government, and big business in general. Then we can do something about it.



My post is too long, so I'll finish it in the next one (sorry to double post!)
WilHarris 9th March 2006, 08:49 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by N/A
sorry to break this to you, but your "right" depends on who's got the power.

You have the power. You elect the lawmakers of this country: you can mandate that they do something about this for you.
Malvolio 9th March 2006, 08:55 Quote
Continued from above.



Quote:
Originally Posted by N/A
If you're biased towards the "oh no DRM =evil" crowd, and I am biased towards the " I hate DRM but it is the future" crowd, the I guess we combined would create a non-biased thread about DRM.
So, if you hate it, why do you accept it? You and Kaze22 both see a drab and crap future, but yet you refuse to do anything about it. There is no reason to just lay down and allow yourself to be walked over simply because you believe the people who are defecating in your mouth are in some sick way "right".

Quote:
Originally Posted by N/A
Then you go on to saying DRM takes away our "right". well... sorry to break this to you, but your "right" depends on who's got the power. You want the media from hollywood. If all content now has DRM, would you still buy it? No one forces people to buy things with DRM, you just buy it becuase you love this new XXXXXXX be it songs or movies. Sure it only plays on one computer... but who's to say that it's okay for content to play on a number of computers? "rights" are dynamic... and relative. I mean, for example, define human rights... it's not possible... it's just like saying type out the emotion happiness.....
My rights involve me being able to use digital content in any way, shape, and form I choose. I will continue to do this regardless of anything these pigs in power tell me. And it is because content has DRM that I don't buy it ;) The only films I watch now are underground. The music I listen to you can't even buy in any shop (digital or physical).

And who's to say what I should and shouldn't be able to do with the content I legally have? Well, I am. Period.

By definition "rights" are not dynamic, they are set in stone, and defined by the country in question's bill of "rights". If these "rights" are questioned by a governmental body, then the populace should revolt against it and do something. Unfortunately people are too stupid do do that.

But just to humor you, I'll define my "right": I have the right to do as I please, when I please, so long as I do not physically injure another person, or deny them their right to do as they please when they please. There. Simple.

Quote:
Originally Posted by N/A
don't talk to me about rights... I mean the US who always preaches about rights... even they use white phosphorous, or refuse to accept kyoto protocol.. why? POWER... and hollywood has the power and they know you will buy the content with or without DRM.
I never stated that the US was "free" in any sense of the word. Try having this same debate with somebody in power and you'll see how much "freedom" an average american citizen has. The song Anarchy Burger sums my views on this up rather nicely.

Quote:
Originally Posted by N/A
As you said, we don't live in a utopian world... so stop living in your own world which says that people only download non-copyrighted content and that we'll stop DRM only becuase it's not "fair" and because it infringes on our "rights" as this is not a utopia, and the content providers are a tyranny. meaning hollywood doesn't care about fairness... only they make profit knowing you're not illegally downloading the content that they produce...which ironically is fair for them.
I never stated I live in a utopian world, I'm simply sharing my insight towards what could be a nice existence, and how society can further advance itself (in my view). Yes, it is a pipe-dream, but that is no reason to completely crap on it.

But you wanna know what really scares me? The fact that you think companies should be allowed to become a tyrannical corporation that dictates what the populace can and cannot do.

I don't want to debate this any further, as I'm extremely tired and should go to bed (stupid work in the morning).




OK, just read your next post N/A (thank you for not going overboard at all and keeping a cool head :))

I am not specifically trying to state china doesn't work, but I'm not saying that the US works absolutely perfectly all the time, every time. EXTREMELY far from it.

I believe that NO government or controlling body ever in existance functions even remotely compitent.

But that is besides the point. I only used china as an easily identifiable refferance that most of the populace on this board would be able to understand (as you stated, it is the stereotype).

And yes, I do know that actually living in china is vastly different from what outsiders hear. I'm not stating in anyway that I know very much about it (unfortunately), but I do know that the stereotype is incorrect.

Oh, and I never stated I wasn't biased :p I actually stated I was extremely biased towards my freedoms and rights. ;)

/off-topic
AlexB 9th March 2006, 09:52 Quote
Good article. :)
N/A 9th March 2006, 09:57 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malfoleo

My rights involve me being able to use digital content in any way, shape, and form I choose. I will continue to do this regardless of anything these pigs in power tell me. And it is because content has DRM that I don't buy it ;) The only films I watch now are underground. The music I listen to you can't even buy in any shop (digital or physical).

Do you think the majority will go "underground" with you? are most people like you who buy's underground media? that's what I'm saying... it's not about us, the more technologically literate... it's the majorty of the average joes, or tha ma and pa buying a gift for a friend/ family.

And come on admit that VERY little people is going to boycott the mainstream media. A LOT of people hate high prices for 50" plasma, yet they still bought it, why? Hi Definition And statistics are everywhere stating hi def is the new future, and that sales of hi def sets are going to quadriple and crap. Do you really think people are going to spend THOUSANDS of dollars on high definition TV, only to watch SDTV and not HDTV becuase of DRM?

No

Get it to your head. Not everyone is going to go "underground" with you. Sure, I hate it, but I rather live with DRM and watch movies on my 42" plasma rather then stay technologically stagnent and refuse to buy new media just becuase it has DRM. As I've said before, the pros (Hi-definition + new movies and music) out weigh the cons (played on only one device). Because pros > cons, I chose to live with DRM.... even though they're "defecating in my mouth" at least I'll be watching new Hi-definition movies, playing new games, and going on with Vista while you sit there in your underground world, watching SDTV, using Windows XP untill the end of time and playing your old games. Have fun.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malfoleo

And who's to say what I should and shouldn't be able to do with the content I legally have? Well, I am. Period.
Just because you want something your way doesn't mean it's going to be your way. Grow up. It's not all about you and what you want or think is "fair" or "right"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malfoleo

By definition "rights" are not dynamic, they are set in stone, and defined by the country in question's bill of "rights". If these "rights" are questioned by a governmental body, then the populace should revolt against it and do something. Unfortunately people are too stupid do do that.

Ever heard of Martial Law? or "national security" or about Bush eves dropping? That's infringing on your rights. So what? If bush eves dropped on you, and you scream to everyone that bush is eves dropping on you, do you think there's going to be a revolt? No. No one cares about you and your "underground world" which is why DRM is the future. Even you said it yourself, but the general population doesn't do what's "right" if they do, the DRM would NOT exist as we would do the right thing and not illegally download. See? it's a full circle, we've brought this upon ourselves.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malfoleo

But just to humor you, I'll define my "right": I have the right to do as I please, when I please, so long as I do not physically injure another person, or deny them their right to do as they please when they please. There. Simple.

So... what if I were to spam bit-tech with posts? Would I not get banned? I'm not physically harming anyone.... nor am I stopping anyone else from doing as they please... technically all SPAM according to your defnition is fine. A lot of things according to your view is fine too, such as stalking, or hacking, or verbal bullying, or threatening people according to you is fine? and it's my right to stalk and threaten you?

See? that's where the trouble occurs... thanks for "humoring me" and proving my point

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malfoleo

OK, just read your next post N/A (thank you for not going overboard at all and keeping a cool head :))

Hmm.... do I smell sarcasm or is it the "pigs" walking over me and "defecating" in my mouth? I'm not going any more overboard as you are, and according to your definition there's nothing wrong with going overboard as it's my right to go overboard.

I did not mean to make you tired or offend you, I am simply stating my pessimestic view on the situation of DRM and how intel is not the root of all evil becuase of it's DTCP-IP (which according to will is DRM which means evil), I'm just saying "hey, step back, take a look, DRM is comming, at least intel is trying to help" and IF intel is only the messenger, at least it's getting the word out, and educating the public masses.... or at least diverting the hate to hollywood, which is the culprit behind DRM.


Will.... do you really think that a politician running agains DRM is really going to get the votes? I mean, when there (in BC) more prevalent issues like healthcare, or olympics (vancouver 2010) or poverty.... is a politican really going to get ahead by saying he'll fight against DRM? Even less people know about DRM or care about DRM. Apple's itunes and their iPods are a form of DRM (songs downloaded only plays on 1 computer), yet majority doesn't seems to know or care yet (sound similar?)... sadly I own a iPod too....(don't worry, I don't use itunes, only mp3.... I hate itunes... but it's podcasting is pretty cool...)


Off topic, but I've found a way to play 1152kbps mp3's on my nano... specs say highes encoding for nano is 320kbps I believe? anyone able to play 1152kbps? it only plays when it's in a playlist, and switching to menus when playing gets laggy (I presume extra processing power is needed to play 1152kbps)
quack 9th March 2006, 10:19 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firehed
Self Promoted Advertising Messages. SPAM. But ask about spam, and he hates the stuff. Does he know what it stands for? No. I had to google that one, but everyone knows what it is.
Spam doesn't stand for anything. It's not an abbreviation.
Pookeyhead 9th March 2006, 11:06 Quote
Mmmm.... Spam :D


Anyway.....

Funny how the next gen "copy protection" (as that's what it amounts to) gets everyone having a tantrum. There are simply too many hardware configurations out there for one company to try and stamp one system on the whole digital world and expect everyone to sign up to you. Intel have a habit of doing this... reminds me of the whole BTX thing.. they decide their chips need more cooling, so try to get everyone else to sign up to their standard... Is it any wonder Apple haven't been too excited about DTCP-IP? Why should they?

All academic anyway.. it will all be cracked, pirated, and generally abused in next to no time... it makes me wonder why they even bother.
Herbicide 9th March 2006, 12:09 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pookeyhead

All academic anyway.. it will all be cracked, pirated, and generally abused in next to no time... it makes me wonder why they even bother.
I think that's the point.

- H.
JonDixon 9th March 2006, 12:27 Quote
Interesting article, and a more interesting debate.

I mostly agree with Malfoleo, DRM is confusing and I dont believe the average consumer is going to understand what they are getting.

Hey, but you wait until they find they need to buy multiple copies of the same thing to play on different devices or that they cant do this because of this. That'll be when it will kick in.

How many consumers finding their $xxx hardware has locked are going to give a damm its becuase of DRM or whatever. Of course they are not, they are going to want refunds. Stores will get bad press, and that will put the publicity back on the manufactures/software companies.

Look at the recent debacle with Sony over DRM on a couple of CD's. Imagine that ten fold by people complaining their entertainment systems are buggered.

For the record I am biased. In fact I only purchase physical media for that reason. I believe I have the inherent right to use the media I purchase anyway I like for my own personal use.
N/A 9th March 2006, 13:25 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonDixon

How many consumers finding their $xxx hardware has locked are going to give a damm its becuase of DRM or whatever. Of course they are not, they are going to want refunds. Stores will get bad press, and that will put the publicity back on the manufactures/software companies.

You forget it's already happening(ed).... as I've already said... itunes + iPod = DRM now, not the future.
Kaze22 9th March 2006, 13:27 Quote
Quote:
So, if you hate it, why do you accept it? You and Kaze22 both see a drab and crap future, but yet you refuse to do anything about it. There is no reason to just lay down and allow yourself to be walked over simply because you believe the people who are defecating in your mouth are in some sick way "right".

LOL We are Chinese we believe in self sacrifice for the sake of a better future and all that jive. Watch Hero with Jet Li, he didn't like emperor Ying Zhen but that didn't matter cause he saw the bigger picture which is something Chinese people do well, it's looking at the bigger picture. Western and Eastern ideals will forever differ, you want freedom for yourself while we want freedom for the generations after us and for them to have freedom sometimes we must sacrfice ours simple as that.

Malfo it appears as proven in our previous arguments that we come from different backgrounds and hold different values, very different values I've made my points based on my values agree or disagree well disagree its your choice but I believe our generation has grown decadent on the freedoms that we've taken for granted without realizing that freedoms comes at a price and that price is almost always sacrifices. We wanna have freedom without sacrifices but I guess having free games, movies and porn has something to do with that state of mind. It kinda sickens me but then again I too am part of this new decadent generation. Like I said I believe our generations biggest test is the sacrifices to be made in cyber space, only time can tell of it's outcomes.
It's safe to say that you will never convince me and neither I will I, so I'm not even gonna bother posting a reply back for each you make as it'll never end and feels somewhat futile as we both hold strong convictions towards our opinions.

P.S As for China, that very disfunctional government, holds the worlds fastest growing economy half of America's annual dept, and they just bought Maytag and IBM. So beauty's in the eye of the beholder.
Krazeh 9th March 2006, 13:45 Quote
Having read Kaze22's and N/A's response I can't help but feel that they don't truly grasp what DRM is all about.
It's not about stopping people obtaining media illegally, the simply fact is DRM will never ever ever stop that happening, once you give individuals the means to decrypt the DRM encrypted data it's going to get cracked, companies know this and they accept this.
DRM however is about locking you into a specific vendors equipment and media, if i buy a song from iTunes it's just as legally my property as a cd i've bought from a shop, yet with the cd i can play it on any pc or hifi in my house, can play it in my car, can copy it to my mp3 player, with my iTunes song i'm locked to playing it on the pc i bought it on or going out to buy an iPod so i can play it when i'm away from my pc. To a degree DRM even causes piracy of material, why goto iTunes and pay for a song that you can only listen to in limited ways when you can load up kazaa and use the mp3 you get anyway you like?
This is the problem that faces DRM implementations, they are telling you that you can only use your legally owned material in the way someone else has decided. This has never been the case in the past and laws have been changed in the past as new media and technology has been invented to accomodate and allow fair use. To just roll over and accept DRM is allowing companies to just walk all over your legal rights and that was what Will was trying to say. All DRM prevents is legal honest users from using their own property in ways they should be legally entitled to do.
Kaze22 9th March 2006, 13:55 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazeh
Having read Kaze22's and N/A's response I can't help but feel that they don't truly grasp what DRM is all about.
It's not about stopping people obtaining media illegally, the simply fact is DRM will never ever ever stop that happening, once you give individuals the means to decrypt the DRM encrypted data it's going to get cracked, companies know this and they accept this.
DRM however is about locking you into a specific vendors equipment and media, if i buy a song from iTunes it's just as legally my property as a cd i've bought from a shop, yet with the cd i can play it on any pc or hifi in my house, can play it in my car, can copy it to my mp3 player, with my iTunes song i'm locked to playing it on the pc i bought it on or going out to buy an iPod so i can play it when i'm away from my pc. To a degree DRM even causes piracy of material, why goto iTunes and pay for a song that you can only listen to in limited ways when you can load up kazaa and use the mp3 you get anyway you like?
This is the problem that faces DRM implementations, they are telling you that you can only use your legally owned material in the way someone else has decided. This has never been the case in the past and laws have been changed in the past as new media and technology has been invented to accomodate and allow fair use. To just roll over and accept DRM is allowing companies to just walk all over your legal rights and that was what Will was trying to say. All DRM prevents is legal honest users from using their own property in ways they should be legally entitled to do.

Read my post I said DRM will never work, Net Control and the stripping of Cyber Space anonymity is the key. Read carefully.
I don't believe in DRM as I believe I should be able to do with my PURCHASED media in any way I choose, but I believe the internet needs to have it's infinite freedom of anonymity removed to make people more responsible for their actions. Like Ying Zhen created China through control, the net needs a ruler and central governing body to watch over humanity.
I know exactly what DRM involves and I think it's a typical North American concoction lacking in any true forsight, the true nature of Digital Rights Management is to create a world of responsible digital users and the key lies in the supression of network freedom. Yes that sounds bad but it's the only way.
Sathy 9th March 2006, 14:24 Quote
Indeed an interesting article, biased or not it does have alot of good points and criticism about the matter. I'd have to say this was the best read BT has offered in quite a while.

And this debate over the subject makes it even more interesting.
However, there are a few things that confuse me.

N/A: Basicly what you're saying is that you choose to succumb to what ever a powerful company or individual or such tells you to, without too much questioning because that's just the way it's supposed to be. I don't really understand why...I know dogs can be broken, but humans?

I have to say that in your last posts for some reason you seem to be concentrating on matters beside the point.

What makes a choise good? it seems that you rather choose something that provides you with all you need as long as you don't question the system too much. So you're mostly driven by a need for comfort - I'm not denying that I wouldn't atleast to some extent -, having as much entertainment as you can without caring too much about the means? Jumping into more conclusions, I'd say this is a pretty common attitude amongts those who don't take much responsibility for their decisions - and why shouldn't you when you don't exactly choose what you do, you just take what's given to you.

How do you think that a society would work if everyone was like you? Not questioning things too harshly, not really wanting to do anything about something that might be an issue, in the end just accepting what someone - in this case, someone who is only looking to profit as much as possible - says is best for us?

I'd say, eventhough we are far from perfect at the moment, that our world would be quite a **ithole of a place without people who question things loudly and give others things to think about. That's basicly what Wil's article is about - as if I recall correctly, you stated it being biased. Provoking thought...is about creating contrasts right? And what's more provoking than this sort of conversation / debating from different viewpoints?


Kaze22: Seems that you're in the same boat with N/A to some extent. Although in a way I agree with you about the "loss of anonimity might be a good thing", but reading this debate has made me think about the usefulness of it, as I (too) have been previously thinking about the possibility of having some sort of controlling system for the Internet. I suppose you're right that Malfoleo comes from a different background, but I do have to say that it does bring up some interesting points to the discussion. It maybe also true that you can't change eachothers opinions, but I'm sure reading such conversation does make a difference to other people who might not have so strong views about the subject.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonDixon

Hey, but you wait until they find they need to buy multiple copies of the same thing to play on different devices or that they cant do this because of this. That'll be when it will kick in.

I'd have to say that the point is or should be to prevent this from happening by thinking and questioning these things BEFORE they become widely used.
Learning from mistakes is one thing, not seeing obvious mistakes beforehand is another.

I know I don't know too much about DRM, but as you most likely can see, I I'm inclined to agree with Malfoleo on this.

We shouldn't accept DRM as it is. In Finland it's already considered illegal to make a copy out of copyprotected you've bought - and eventhough it doesn't effect me too much for the time being, as most of the music I buy isn't protected, it's more than likely that every record company will take advantage of this law and the amount of copyprotected cd's will increase.

I too have recently purchased an iPod, and I buy everything I listen to. So far I haven't purchased anything out of iTunes but I'm warming up to the idea as I listen most of my music using my computer or the iPod anyway. But the idea of the possibility of having to buy a separate copy for everything - iPod, each PC, CD-players, and some mp3 players with HD's in a car which is likely to become a standard at some point - isn't exactly the idea that I would have of an ideal entertainment system that's easy to use. So I'm not exactly sure yet which road to take. What iTunes has got going for it is the ease of use, a couple of clicks and you've got an album - that's pretty damn appealing. But is it a prosperous road from a consumers point of view, I'm starting to wonder.

Bah, not exactly feeling very articulate at the moment, sorry =]
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums