A good article. The whole DTCP-IP looks a little too propriatery to me. Hopefully that will be its downfall, I cant see any good coming from this. Now I know N/A and Kaze22 will probably continue their rant about how DRM will help us but I just can not see how. If I download somthing either I cant find it in the store or I dont even like it enough to buy it. And when I do buy it I want to rip it, put it in with the rest of my music, and burn it and a bunch of other cd's to a mp3 cd, then I can preserve the orriginal and not have to switch through cd's while driving. In a way this makes life easier for me and also makes me a safer driver, its much easier to push a button than change a cd. I DO NOT want some corprate morons telling me what I can and cant do with my music, after all I paid for it and if they take away that right then what incentive do I have to remain legal. I will not buy a cd that wont rip, I will download it. Its the same thing as buying a faulty product. When more people know what DRM really is and does most people, with the exception of N/A and Kaze22, will get really miffed.
And to N/A and Kaze22, if you can tell me in one sentence why DRM and copy protection are so good, please do so.
Originally Posted by speedfreek A good article. The whole DTCP-IP looks a little too propriatery to me. Hopefully that will be its downfall, I cant see any good coming from this. Now I know N/A and Kaze22 will probably continue their rant about how DRM will help us but I just can not see how. If I download somthing either I cant find it in the store or I dont even like it enough to buy it. And when I do buy it I want to rip it, put it in with the rest of my music, and burn it and a bunch of other cd's to a mp3 cd, then I can preserve the orriginal and not have to switch through cd's while driving. In a way this makes life easier for me and also makes me a safer driver, its much easier to push a button than change a cd. I DO NOT want some corprate morons telling me what I can and cant do with my music, after all I paid for it and if they take away that right then what incentive do I have to remain legal. I will not buy a cd that wont rip, I will download it. Its the same thing as buying a faulty product. When more people know what DRM really is and does most people, with the exception of N/A and Kaze22, will get really miffed.
And to N/A and Kaze22, if you can tell me in one sentence why DRM and copy protection are so good, please do so.
DId you even read my post, or you're just assuming that I love DRM, as I said over and over again. I don't believe in the current trend of DRM. Here I'm gonna quote myself just for you ;)
Quote:
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.
Get it, in my perspective DRM should not be implemented to strip away the rights of those whom LEGALLY PURCHASED media, but rather to protect the intellectual properties from those whom would abuse the net for elegal theft of media.
So to sum things up, I say all the power to those who OWN media, but fck all those who steal media including myself and please don't give me that I wasn't gonna buy it garbage I'm too old for that nonsense and really it's getting old.
My version of DRM is the removal of anonymity in cyberspace and in turn the enforcement of rules and regulations on the theft of digital media, why is it good you ask.
Simple, if we keep taking sht for free then soon we won't have anything left to take and I really don't wanna live in a world void of high production value films and games and other facets of non physical creative content.
I think that was the ONE sentence that you were looking for.
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.
You say I don't understand DRM?
YOU DON'T. iTunes is DRM. You can't take songs from your ipod and transfer to another computer. you can only transfer songs from one computer to your ipod.
read my post before you post... or else you just end up looking like an idiot. Furthermore, I already addressed the issue of "being walked over".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Speedfreak
And to N/A and Kaze22, if you can tell me in one sentence why DRM and copy protection are so good, please do so.
tell me in 1 sentence where I said DRM is so good.
How can you judge my posts without reading it? It's people like you who get brainwashed by "oo, I'm gonna sign petitions and stop DRM" or "oo, I'm going to boycott hollywood and go underground"
You forget, malfoleo is going "underground" are you going to? Do you have any hollywood block buster movies? what about a HDTV?
The internet is probably the best communication tool the human race has developed since language was first invented, I'm not sure you can enforce law and order on it without crippling it so badly it becomes near useless for its intended purpose.
Before the internet I bought 0 music, 0 films, think I asked for 3 albums for christmas at various stages, so I do own a couple, mostly If I wanted music i'd turn on a radio, film-wise I'd go to watch one each year for my birthday, maybe one for my brothers birthday. I did buy games.
Since the internet I still haven't bought any music or films, but I have bought one TV series (Firefly) and if anything go to see slightly more films at the cinema (like 2-3 per year now)
I early on downloaded a certain amount of music .. since then I'd say its only gotten easier, but I've basically stopped downloading illegitimite music, mostly because internet radio stations and my internet connection have gotten to the point where I don't need to, my music collection mostly expands via places like radio wazee these days - where they keep a collection of music that the artists want to give away for free (and theres some awesome bands there - if you are into rock anyway)
I still buy games, a few years ago I would download games I probably wouldn't have bought as they came out, but decided after a while that if I probably wouldn't have bought them I probably didn't want to download them either. I can think of at least two cases where I downloaded (or otherwise obtained illegally) then went on to actually buy the game in a store, simply because I wanted to support the developers in question (The same reason I think a lot of the shoddy or simply extremely short demos that do the rounds these days are bad for the companies in question actually)
To cut a long story short I resolved to support those I really felt deserving and just ignore the rest, sadly the deserving is a fairly small group (the issue that stops me expanding the category is simply that they charge more than I consider worthwhile for the product in pretty much 100% of music, film and TV DVDs)
Mostly I download TV shows these days, because I do everything via the PC, the attempts at legal downloads so far have all been of lower quality and more limited availability than the "free" sources, if they fix that and charge reasonably I might have taken to downloading those.
Actually in the case of most music, film and TV I think the first content provider to latch onto consumers as there own delivery medium (ie a legal, pay-for file sharing network with a certain amount of guaranteed support from the providers) with fair quality and a low cost (basically the consumers themselves support most of the costs via there always-on broadband connections to each other) will probably see a huge up-surge in sales, via taking advantage of what the internet does best, most of the content providers attempts so far are more like trying to pretend it doesn't exist than taking advantage of it though.
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?
you seem to have read what I've wrote...so I will address your concerns.
You say that I'm "following what everyone says" or what the "man" tells me to do. but infact, I'm doing the opposite. Online, on these fourms, the majority of people discussing or those who understand DRM mostly think "I'm going to boycott DRM and hollywood"
now, I'm going the opposite direction, I'm questioning whether you people screaming how DRM is the devil, or evil is going to have any affect on hollywood implementing DRM.
I'm fully aware of the implications of DRM, but I say that I will still go along with it. why? Because I realize that the majority of people who to to bit-tech, or actually understands DRM, are a "niche". ask your average joe about DRM, I doubt he knows what it is. the fact that you know about make us a "niche". We realize how bad DRM is, but the majority of the people don't, which means that when DRM content is going to be released into the market, a lot of people is still going to buy it. we "niche" people may hate it, but we're still minority, and as long majority makes hollywood profitable, they're not going to care about us screaming our a**es off on cyber space
One of you mentioned how pissed off everyone was when sony implemented DRM on that music CD. are you sure everyone was pissed? or only those who knew what DRM is and bothered to go on technology site and read about the story? If you go around your street and asked anyone if they knew about the DRM with sony's CD, I doubt they would care or understand. This only proves that we're minority, and that minority get's tramppled over.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sathy
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.
I thought this was what DTCP-IP was supposed to do? I'm not going to claim I'm an expert at DTCP-IP I thought that DTCP-IP was supposed to make it so that people can transfer DRM content to other DTCP-IP devices so they can be played?
also, like your point about iTunes and ipod... how many HDTV's are going to be in one house? and HD-DVD players will have DRM decoding, so as long as you do own a HDCP dvd player, HDCP dvd and HDCP TV you'll be able to play the content. When this stuff is streamed off the internet, I thought DTCP-IP will mean that you can say transfer DRM movie from one HDTV to another HDTV and allowed media to be played on both devices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sathy
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 completely agree. But how many people really question both sides? We "techies" may question DRM, but majority of the people may not. All I'm saying is that I hate DRM, but I know majority of the people is not going to question it or fight against it, therefore, DRM will prevail and bite everyone in the a**s but by that time it's already too late. You say that DRM is obviously a mistake, but I believe the underlying ethics of DRM is good. I mean, it just aims to stop pirating and people illegally downloading content. I'm sure the content providers know DRM is going to leave a bad taste on the consumer, but then then the content providers still implement DRM becuase as internet speed gets faster, information travels faster, and it's not going to allow it's HD content to be stolen like SD content is being stole right now. No company wants to leave a bad experience for the consumer and DRM's goal is not to remove your "rights".... but they see it as either you get bad experience or hollywood is going to go bankrupt.
Most of you expressed your "right" to your legally bought content total. As in you can do whatever you want with your content. Is that really so? If I legally bought 1 DVD and it's my "right" to share it with the 6 billion other people on the plant, is it okay?
for the last time. I HATE DRM, I never said it was good, I'm not "being spoon fed the crap" from major corperations, I'm only saying that DRM will proceed whether you like it or not becuase we're minority, we don't have the power and hollywood does. Oh yea, I DO understand all about DRM, so stop calling me "newbie" and that I don't know what DRM is.
You say that DRM is obviously a mistake, but I believe the underlying ethics of DRM is good.
I agree with you that the cause of getting rid of piracy is a noble one, but the thing is that as DRM currently is, it's completely useless in achieving that goal and has alot of potential making legitimate use more difficult - hence the sceptisism towards it.
Quote:
Most of you expressed your "right" to your legally bought content total. As in you can do whatever you want with your content. Is that really so? If I legally bought 1 DVD and it's my "right" to share it with the 6 billion other people on the plant, is it okay?
I noticed the earlier short-lived and sort-of-mislead debate about rights but didn't feel like wanting to add to that before...I don't see any rights being total and ultimate, because there are other's rights also that have to be taken into consideration. MOST of us have a "thing" that's called common sense and it's totally free to use so please do take advantage of that, before someone figures out how to create a standard TRM (Thought Right Management).
Originally Posted by Sathy I agree with you that the cause of getting rid of piracy is a noble one, but the thing is that as DRM currently is, it's completely useless in achieving that goal and has alot of potential making legitimate use more difficult - hence the sceptisism towards it.
I noticed the earlier short-lived and sort-of-mislead debate about rights but didn't feel like wanting to add to that before...I don't see any rights being total and ultimate, because there are other's rights also that have to be taken into consideration. MOST of us have a "thing" that's called common sense and it's totally free to use so please do take advantage of that, before someone figures out how to create a standard TRM (Thought Right Management).
The internet is probably the best communication tool the human race has developed since language was first invented I'm not sure you can enforce law and order on it without crippling it so badly it becomes near useless for its intended purpose
I partially agree but since when has anonymity become a defacto standard for global communication. Yes it's true that the internet is one of mankinds greatest tools for communication and just may very well one day help unite the world in a new way, but communication without responsibility is chaos. You cannot have a world any world, whether it be cyber or physical without law and order. The net being a free place to exchange knowledge and ideas is great but without rules to guide the average user all you'll have is inevitable chaos.
Ask yourself this, why does civilized humanity continue to exist? Is it not the rules and regulations set fourth by civilization that helps guide us through life? Are our actions anonymous, are we anonymous? No, you interact in the physical world, you must be responsible for everything you say and everything you do? Why because of those very laws set into place to maintain order. In the physical world you are free but at the same time your identity helps to keep you in check. Your face, your name, your family all serve as your ID, and in a sense strip you of anonymity.
The same must be upheld in Cyber Space, the internet cannot continue to be a fantasy lala land where all the physical rules do not apply, where you can be anyone you want, do anything you want without having to take responsibility for your actions. The way I see it, internet when it first became mainstream was ill structured and was falsely advertised as being a place where reality does not matter where you can be anonymous to the world and do anything you want. The general masses was given too much freedom and was lead to believe that the internet was some sort of a game, where no one could be hurt, but behind all your actions in Cyber Space, there is always equal reactions in the physical world, if you steal than someone loses, if you flame then someone gets upset and if you lie than someone may be deceived. This idea that the net is a free for all fantasy world is starting to slowly die down as we see its repercussions, and slowly I believe society will begin to rectify the nature of the net and its freedom to its users.
Wil, I think your article operates on too many assumptions. Forgive the pun, but it seems that your vision on "why Intel DRM is flawed" is flawed itself, and that's why:
1. DTCP-IP is not a DRM. It is a part of solution what may or may not be used in DRM. Being only a partial solution, DTCP-IP cannot and won't provide the means of copy-protecting media out of its operation field. Does DTCP-IP makes harder to me copying my unprotected home video or restricts using of this file in any way? No. After stating that DTCP-IP = DRM you draw too many conclusions, which won't cost a penny without that "=" sign.
2. Intel is agreed with the fact that DTCP-IP can be hacked, but that no way is a flaw. Any technology could be hacked. It is just a question of time and effort. Intel's task is to make DTCP-IP hard enough to hack, so effort wouldn't pay off.
3. You are stating that DRM protected content often is a "crap" in terms of quality. Let me tell you that it is not at least where I am living. I can walk out and buy latest and greatest DVDs at 1.5 - 5 USD per each. Quality on most of them is a crap. Or I can go and pay 4 (stereo sound version) to 15 USD for legal DVD with high level of quality. Because of amount of pirated disks our local movie studios have to make bulk of their money in theaters, and start selling DVDs as soon as 1 month after initial release. How much money they are loosing? I don't know, but I know that the making of some really good movies didn't pay off.
4. You assume that DRM is bad because it restricts your legal right of handling content. It is not about DRM it is about abusing DRM. As Apple shows us DRM may work transparently and keep consumer confusion at minimum level. If DRM scheme allows you to do the very same things that allowed by the laws, is it really that bad? I assume people really dislike DRM of modern day because it is really cumbersome in most of the cases. But it may be not. That what Intel is offering - you just connect two devices together and that's all.
5. Please don't confuse resrtictions of use imparted by DRM with total victory over the piracy. Those restriction are meant to fight "casual piracy" where I can make a copy of some music or movie to each one of my friends. Real piracy is about stealing content BEFORE it becomes DRM-protected to make copies of it in industrial scale (that is how piracy works here). Content makers always will loose money on piracy, but with DRM they can lessen that impact a bit.
Please understand, I'm not an advocate of DRM, I just cannot stand when people claim that any DRM is an evil thing.
Get it, in my perspective DRM should not be implemented to strip away the rights of those whom LEGALLY PURCHASED media...
Sadly, that's exactly why DRM exists, to limit the rights of those who purchase it legally. Case in point, I occasionally purchase music online. If I were to fully comply with their perception of their rights, I would have to purchase a seperate copy for every computer I listen to it on, even though they are all in the same house. I don't feel that is a reasonable restriction so I end-run the DRM. If I were to download my music illegally, I wouldnt have to mess with the intermediate step. It's sort of like the old line about "If you make owning a gun a crime, only crimnals will have guns". In this case, only those who pay for content are limited by DRM. THose that steal it have no such restrictions to deal with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaze22 So to sum things up, I say all the power to those who OWN media
Once you pay for the use of the media, do you not own the right to use it as you see fit, so long as you do not re-sell or redistribute the content? Content owners would tell you that you do not and use DRM to in an attempt to prevent you from doing so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaze22 My version of DRM is the removal of anonymity in cyberspace and in turn the enforcement of rules and regulations on the theft of digital media, why is it good you ask.
Simple, if we keep taking sht for free then soon we won't have anything left to take and I really don't wanna live in a world void of high production value films and games and other facets of non physical creative content.
THis is a point of fundamental disagreement on several levels.
I know from previous threads that you feel that people are motivated by money to create, wheather it be art or music or any other sort of content. It has been my expierience in life that artists create because they are driven to by their creativity, not for any reward they recieve, financial or otherwise. This may not apply to movies due to their cost of production, but for all other content I don't think you would see people stop producing even if most people stole their content and only a few paid for it.
I am a content creator and therefore a copyright holder. I write and also enjoy photography, and I post the content I create on my website. I know that someone could steal my content and use or sell it as their own, but that is the risk. I post it online not because I'm trying to sell it (though one of these days I may get serious about trying to sell some of my photography), but because I am driven to create it and having created it I want to share it.
Finally, let me offer a differing view on the need for control and structure in society. I live in a small community in the northwestern US. THis is a fairly poor area about 25 miles from town and there is no effective law enforcement up here. In fact, I attended a public meeting once where the Sherriff stood up and said that they would not even investigate property crimes because they didn't have the resources or any room in the jail. Basically, I could steal my neighbors blind with no fear of consequences. You know what? Despite the reputation, there is actually not a huge crime problem. Most people mind their own business and don't bother their neighbors. I like living up here. Maybe it's just me, but I'll always choose disorder over control. So it goes with the net. Some people will always steal, it's simply in their nature. Most people would prefer to be fair. THe inherent problem with DRM is that it punishes those who choose to act fairly without affecting those who steal.
And on a personal note, I will always seek to subvert laws or rules that I feel are unfair, and I encourage others to do so as well. If you don't like it, fight it. Not saying no is not the same as saying yes, but it is also not the same as saying no.
Originally Posted by _ViC_ Wil, I think your article operates on too many assumptions. Forgive the pun, but it seems that your vision on "why Intel DRM is flawed" is flawed itself, and that's why:
1. DTCP-IP is not a DRM. It is a part of solution what may or may not be used in DRM. Being only a partial solution, DTCP-IP cannot and won't provide the means of copy-protecting media out of its operation field. Does DTCP-IP makes harder to me copying my unprotected home video or restricts using of this file in any way? No. After stating that DTCP-IP = DRM you draw too many conclusions, which won't cost a penny without that "=" sign.
2. Intel is agreed with the fact that DTCP-IP can be hacked, but that no way is a flaw. Any technology could be hacked. It is just a question of time and effort. Intel's task is to make DTCP-IP hard enough to hack, so effort wouldn't pay off.
3. You are stating that DRM protected content often is a "crap" in terms of quality. Let me tell you that it is not at least where I am living. I can walk out and buy latest and greatest DVDs at 1.5 - 5 USD per each. Quality on most of them is a crap. Or I can go and pay 4 (stereo sound version) to 15 USD for legal DVD with high level of quality. Because of amount of pirated disks our local movie studios have to make bulk of their money in theaters, and start selling DVDs as soon as 1 month after initial release. How much money they are loosing? I don't know, but I know that the making of some really good movies didn't pay off.
4. You assume that DRM is bad because it restricts your legal right of handling content. It is not about DRM it is about abusing DRM. As Apple shows us DRM may work transparently and keep consumer confusion at minimum level. If DRM scheme allows you to do the very same things that allowed by the laws, is it really that bad? I assume people really dislike DRM of modern day because it is really cumbersome in most of the cases. But it may be not. That what Intel is offering - you just connect two devices together and that's all.
5. Please don't confuse resrtictions of use imparted by DRM with total victory over the piracy. Those restriction are meant to fight "casual piracy" where I can make a copy of some music or movie to each one of my friends. Real piracy is about stealing content BEFORE it becomes DRM-protected to make copies of it in industrial scale (that is how piracy works here). Content makers always will loose money on piracy, but with DRM they can lessen that impact a bit.
Please understand, I'm not an advocate of DRM, I just cannot stand when people claim that any DRM is an evil thing.
Hahahahah... you should have read my first post. I basically said will leaped to too many conclusions too... with the added bonus that in my opinion, the future is going to have DRM either way.
Originally Posted by Cthippo THis is a point of fundamental disagreement on several levels. I know from previous threads that you feel that people are motivated by money to create, wheather it be art or music or any other sort of content. It has been my expierience in life that artists create because they are driven to by their creativity, not for any reward they recieve, financial or otherwise. This may not apply to movies due to their cost of production, but for all other content I don't think you would see people stop producing even if most people stole their content and only a few paid for it.
I am a content creator and therefore a copyright holder. I write and also enjoy photography, and I post the content I create on my website. I know that someone could steal my content and use or sell it as their own, but that is the risk. I post it online not because I'm trying to sell it (though one of these days I may get serious about trying to sell some of my photography), but because I am driven to create it and having created it I want to share it.
Finally, let me offer a differing view on the need for control and structure in society. I live in a small community in the northwestern US. THis is a fairly poor area about 25 miles from town and there is no effective law enforcement up here. In fact, I attended a public meeting once where the Sherriff stood up and said that they would not even investigate property crimes because they didn't have the resources or any room in the jail. Basically, I could steal my neighbors blind with no fear of consequences. You know what? Despite the reputation, there is actually not a huge crime problem. Most people mind their own business and don't bother their neighbors. I like living up here. Maybe it's just me, but I'll always choose disorder over control. So it goes with the net. Some people will always steal, it's simply in their nature. Most people would prefer to be fair. THe inherent problem with DRM is that it punishes those who choose to act fairly without affecting those who steal. And on a personal note, I will always seek to subvert laws or rules that I feel are unfair, and I encourage others to do so as well. If you don't like it, fight it. Not saying no is not the same as saying yes, but it is also not the same as saying no.
Whether content is inspired by personal gain through due compensation or not is irrelevant, I too am a content creator and yes I too am not inspired by the accumulation of wealth, but many forms of content need money to be created. Thats where production value comes into play, if you wanna make a big game you need staff and that costs money, same with software, movies, novels, magazines and all facets of creative content. The creator may not be inspired by wealth but the quality of content is almost always directly tied in with production value. If any professional content creator is serious about their work key word here is work, then they will most likely invest all their time to it, thus their creation becomes their life and in turn their bread and butter. So to say that creation is not tied in with compensation is ludicrous, because it could be argued that if Mozart or Van Gogh had acquired more adequate compensation in life then maybe they would have been around a few more years and the world would have had a few more masterpieces, certainly all great content creators are driven by the urge to create but the lack of compensation is a serious deterring factor in the quantity and quality of the end product. So with that said if we keep taking content for free then it is only logical that the quality and quantity of content will decline, you don't need to be Einstein to figure this out.
As you say you live in a small town and your laws are lax, but are you anonymous in your town? I wouldnt think so. Im sure that because of the tightly nit community the folks that live in your town are more acquainted and hence there is lack of anonymity and hence their does not need to be a heavy enforcement of law. Because you know when you go and steal Uncle Ebert's blinds chances are the whole town will find out and you, the person not the cyber enigma Cthippo but the person with a name and a family and possibly a reputation will be affected.
You see the big world and cyber space is not a little town but a huge forest and in this forest we cannot be totally free so Control over Cyber Space is inevitable. I say again take a away anonymity and you create responsibility, thats the first thing we teach kids when they enter the world. Remember this Little Billy, when you go to class play nice with your friends, because if you are a bad boy then people wont like you, and your mommy will be upset, one day youll hear something like this Billy when you go online, you have to behave dont steal or insult people because Mommy will be upset and dont talk to strangers only play with your verified friends okay
Comments 26 to 37 of 37
And to N/A and Kaze22, if you can tell me in one sentence why DRM and copy protection are so good, please do so.
DId you even read my post, or you're just assuming that I love DRM, as I said over and over again. I don't believe in the current trend of DRM. Here I'm gonna quote myself just for you ;)
So to sum things up, I say all the power to those who OWN media, but fck all those who steal media including myself and please don't give me that I wasn't gonna buy it garbage I'm too old for that nonsense and really it's getting old.
My version of DRM is the removal of anonymity in cyberspace and in turn the enforcement of rules and regulations on the theft of digital media, why is it good you ask.
Simple, if we keep taking sht for free then soon we won't have anything left to take and I really don't wanna live in a world void of high production value films and games and other facets of non physical creative content.
I think that was the ONE sentence that you were looking for.
You say I don't understand DRM?
YOU DON'T. iTunes is DRM. You can't take songs from your ipod and transfer to another computer. you can only transfer songs from one computer to your ipod.
read my post before you post... or else you just end up looking like an idiot. Furthermore, I already addressed the issue of "being walked over".
tell me in 1 sentence where I said DRM is so good.
How can you judge my posts without reading it? It's people like you who get brainwashed by "oo, I'm gonna sign petitions and stop DRM" or "oo, I'm going to boycott hollywood and go underground"
You forget, malfoleo is going "underground" are you going to? Do you have any hollywood block buster movies? what about a HDTV?
now, shut up, read my post first, then rant
Before the internet I bought 0 music, 0 films, think I asked for 3 albums for christmas at various stages, so I do own a couple, mostly If I wanted music i'd turn on a radio, film-wise I'd go to watch one each year for my birthday, maybe one for my brothers birthday. I did buy games.
Since the internet I still haven't bought any music or films, but I have bought one TV series (Firefly) and if anything go to see slightly more films at the cinema (like 2-3 per year now)
I early on downloaded a certain amount of music .. since then I'd say its only gotten easier, but I've basically stopped downloading illegitimite music, mostly because internet radio stations and my internet connection have gotten to the point where I don't need to, my music collection mostly expands via places like radio wazee these days - where they keep a collection of music that the artists want to give away for free (and theres some awesome bands there - if you are into rock anyway)
I still buy games, a few years ago I would download games I probably wouldn't have bought as they came out, but decided after a while that if I probably wouldn't have bought them I probably didn't want to download them either. I can think of at least two cases where I downloaded (or otherwise obtained illegally) then went on to actually buy the game in a store, simply because I wanted to support the developers in question (The same reason I think a lot of the shoddy or simply extremely short demos that do the rounds these days are bad for the companies in question actually)
To cut a long story short I resolved to support those I really felt deserving and just ignore the rest, sadly the deserving is a fairly small group (the issue that stops me expanding the category is simply that they charge more than I consider worthwhile for the product in pretty much 100% of music, film and TV DVDs)
Mostly I download TV shows these days, because I do everything via the PC, the attempts at legal downloads so far have all been of lower quality and more limited availability than the "free" sources, if they fix that and charge reasonably I might have taken to downloading those.
Actually in the case of most music, film and TV I think the first content provider to latch onto consumers as there own delivery medium (ie a legal, pay-for file sharing network with a certain amount of guaranteed support from the providers) with fair quality and a low cost (basically the consumers themselves support most of the costs via there always-on broadband connections to each other) will probably see a huge up-surge in sales, via taking advantage of what the internet does best, most of the content providers attempts so far are more like trying to pretend it doesn't exist than taking advantage of it though.
you seem to have read what I've wrote...so I will address your concerns.
You say that I'm "following what everyone says" or what the "man" tells me to do. but infact, I'm doing the opposite. Online, on these fourms, the majority of people discussing or those who understand DRM mostly think "I'm going to boycott DRM and hollywood"
now, I'm going the opposite direction, I'm questioning whether you people screaming how DRM is the devil, or evil is going to have any affect on hollywood implementing DRM.
I'm fully aware of the implications of DRM, but I say that I will still go along with it. why? Because I realize that the majority of people who to to bit-tech, or actually understands DRM, are a "niche". ask your average joe about DRM, I doubt he knows what it is. the fact that you know about make us a "niche". We realize how bad DRM is, but the majority of the people don't, which means that when DRM content is going to be released into the market, a lot of people is still going to buy it. we "niche" people may hate it, but we're still minority, and as long majority makes hollywood profitable, they're not going to care about us screaming our a**es off on cyber space
One of you mentioned how pissed off everyone was when sony implemented DRM on that music CD. are you sure everyone was pissed? or only those who knew what DRM is and bothered to go on technology site and read about the story? If you go around your street and asked anyone if they knew about the DRM with sony's CD, I doubt they would care or understand. This only proves that we're minority, and that minority get's tramppled over.
I thought this was what DTCP-IP was supposed to do? I'm not going to claim I'm an expert at DTCP-IP I thought that DTCP-IP was supposed to make it so that people can transfer DRM content to other DTCP-IP devices so they can be played?
also, like your point about iTunes and ipod... how many HDTV's are going to be in one house? and HD-DVD players will have DRM decoding, so as long as you do own a HDCP dvd player, HDCP dvd and HDCP TV you'll be able to play the content. When this stuff is streamed off the internet, I thought DTCP-IP will mean that you can say transfer DRM movie from one HDTV to another HDTV and allowed media to be played on both devices.
I completely agree. But how many people really question both sides? We "techies" may question DRM, but majority of the people may not. All I'm saying is that I hate DRM, but I know majority of the people is not going to question it or fight against it, therefore, DRM will prevail and bite everyone in the a**s but by that time it's already too late. You say that DRM is obviously a mistake, but I believe the underlying ethics of DRM is good. I mean, it just aims to stop pirating and people illegally downloading content. I'm sure the content providers know DRM is going to leave a bad taste on the consumer, but then then the content providers still implement DRM becuase as internet speed gets faster, information travels faster, and it's not going to allow it's HD content to be stolen like SD content is being stole right now. No company wants to leave a bad experience for the consumer and DRM's goal is not to remove your "rights".... but they see it as either you get bad experience or hollywood is going to go bankrupt.
Most of you expressed your "right" to your legally bought content total. As in you can do whatever you want with your content. Is that really so? If I legally bought 1 DVD and it's my "right" to share it with the 6 billion other people on the plant, is it okay?
for the last time. I HATE DRM, I never said it was good, I'm not "being spoon fed the crap" from major corperations, I'm only saying that DRM will proceed whether you like it or not becuase we're minority, we don't have the power and hollywood does. Oh yea, I DO understand all about DRM, so stop calling me "newbie" and that I don't know what DRM is.
I agree with you that the cause of getting rid of piracy is a noble one, but the thing is that as DRM currently is, it's completely useless in achieving that goal and has alot of potential making legitimate use more difficult - hence the sceptisism towards it.
I noticed the earlier short-lived and sort-of-mislead debate about rights but didn't feel like wanting to add to that before...I don't see any rights being total and ultimate, because there are other's rights also that have to be taken into consideration. MOST of us have a "thing" that's called common sense and it's totally free to use so please do take advantage of that, before someone figures out how to create a standard TRM (Thought Right Management).
Have a good weekend!
I agree.
Ask yourself this, why does civilized humanity continue to exist? Is it not the rules and regulations set fourth by civilization that helps guide us through life? Are our actions anonymous, are we anonymous? No, you interact in the physical world, you must be responsible for everything you say and everything you do? Why because of those very laws set into place to maintain order. In the physical world you are free but at the same time your identity helps to keep you in check. Your face, your name, your family all serve as your ID, and in a sense strip you of anonymity.
The same must be upheld in Cyber Space, the internet cannot continue to be a fantasy lala land where all the physical rules do not apply, where you can be anyone you want, do anything you want without having to take responsibility for your actions. The way I see it, internet when it first became mainstream was ill structured and was falsely advertised as being a place where reality does not matter where you can be anonymous to the world and do anything you want. The general masses was given too much freedom and was lead to believe that the internet was some sort of a game, where no one could be hurt, but behind all your actions in Cyber Space, there is always equal reactions in the physical world, if you steal than someone loses, if you flame then someone gets upset and if you lie than someone may be deceived. This idea that the net is a free for all fantasy world is starting to slowly die down as we see its repercussions, and slowly I believe society will begin to rectify the nature of the net and its freedom to its users.
1. DTCP-IP is not a DRM. It is a part of solution what may or may not be used in DRM. Being only a partial solution, DTCP-IP cannot and won't provide the means of copy-protecting media out of its operation field. Does DTCP-IP makes harder to me copying my unprotected home video or restricts using of this file in any way? No. After stating that DTCP-IP = DRM you draw too many conclusions, which won't cost a penny without that "=" sign.
2. Intel is agreed with the fact that DTCP-IP can be hacked, but that no way is a flaw. Any technology could be hacked. It is just a question of time and effort. Intel's task is to make DTCP-IP hard enough to hack, so effort wouldn't pay off.
3. You are stating that DRM protected content often is a "crap" in terms of quality. Let me tell you that it is not at least where I am living. I can walk out and buy latest and greatest DVDs at 1.5 - 5 USD per each. Quality on most of them is a crap. Or I can go and pay 4 (stereo sound version) to 15 USD for legal DVD with high level of quality. Because of amount of pirated disks our local movie studios have to make bulk of their money in theaters, and start selling DVDs as soon as 1 month after initial release. How much money they are loosing? I don't know, but I know that the making of some really good movies didn't pay off.
4. You assume that DRM is bad because it restricts your legal right of handling content. It is not about DRM it is about abusing DRM. As Apple shows us DRM may work transparently and keep consumer confusion at minimum level. If DRM scheme allows you to do the very same things that allowed by the laws, is it really that bad? I assume people really dislike DRM of modern day because it is really cumbersome in most of the cases. But it may be not. That what Intel is offering - you just connect two devices together and that's all.
5. Please don't confuse resrtictions of use imparted by DRM with total victory over the piracy. Those restriction are meant to fight "casual piracy" where I can make a copy of some music or movie to each one of my friends. Real piracy is about stealing content BEFORE it becomes DRM-protected to make copies of it in industrial scale (that is how piracy works here). Content makers always will loose money on piracy, but with DRM they can lessen that impact a bit.
Please understand, I'm not an advocate of DRM, I just cannot stand when people claim that any DRM is an evil thing.
Sadly, that's exactly why DRM exists, to limit the rights of those who purchase it legally. Case in point, I occasionally purchase music online. If I were to fully comply with their perception of their rights, I would have to purchase a seperate copy for every computer I listen to it on, even though they are all in the same house. I don't feel that is a reasonable restriction so I end-run the DRM. If I were to download my music illegally, I wouldnt have to mess with the intermediate step. It's sort of like the old line about "If you make owning a gun a crime, only crimnals will have guns". In this case, only those who pay for content are limited by DRM. THose that steal it have no such restrictions to deal with.
Once you pay for the use of the media, do you not own the right to use it as you see fit, so long as you do not re-sell or redistribute the content? Content owners would tell you that you do not and use DRM to in an attempt to prevent you from doing so.
THis is a point of fundamental disagreement on several levels.
I know from previous threads that you feel that people are motivated by money to create, wheather it be art or music or any other sort of content. It has been my expierience in life that artists create because they are driven to by their creativity, not for any reward they recieve, financial or otherwise. This may not apply to movies due to their cost of production, but for all other content I don't think you would see people stop producing even if most people stole their content and only a few paid for it.
I am a content creator and therefore a copyright holder. I write and also enjoy photography, and I post the content I create on my website. I know that someone could steal my content and use or sell it as their own, but that is the risk. I post it online not because I'm trying to sell it (though one of these days I may get serious about trying to sell some of my photography), but because I am driven to create it and having created it I want to share it.
Finally, let me offer a differing view on the need for control and structure in society. I live in a small community in the northwestern US. THis is a fairly poor area about 25 miles from town and there is no effective law enforcement up here. In fact, I attended a public meeting once where the Sherriff stood up and said that they would not even investigate property crimes because they didn't have the resources or any room in the jail. Basically, I could steal my neighbors blind with no fear of consequences. You know what? Despite the reputation, there is actually not a huge crime problem. Most people mind their own business and don't bother their neighbors. I like living up here. Maybe it's just me, but I'll always choose disorder over control. So it goes with the net. Some people will always steal, it's simply in their nature. Most people would prefer to be fair. THe inherent problem with DRM is that it punishes those who choose to act fairly without affecting those who steal.
And on a personal note, I will always seek to subvert laws or rules that I feel are unfair, and I encourage others to do so as well. If you don't like it, fight it. Not saying no is not the same as saying yes, but it is also not the same as saying no.
Hahahahah... you should have read my first post. I basically said will leaped to too many conclusions too... with the added bonus that in my opinion, the future is going to have DRM either way.
well said Vic and I guess welcome to bit tech
Whether content is inspired by personal gain through due compensation or not is irrelevant, I too am a content creator and yes I too am not inspired by the accumulation of wealth, but many forms of content need money to be created. Thats where production value comes into play, if you wanna make a big game you need staff and that costs money, same with software, movies, novels, magazines and all facets of creative content. The creator may not be inspired by wealth but the quality of content is almost always directly tied in with production value. If any professional content creator is serious about their work key word here is work, then they will most likely invest all their time to it, thus their creation becomes their life and in turn their bread and butter. So to say that creation is not tied in with compensation is ludicrous, because it could be argued that if Mozart or Van Gogh had acquired more adequate compensation in life then maybe they would have been around a few more years and the world would have had a few more masterpieces, certainly all great content creators are driven by the urge to create but the lack of compensation is a serious deterring factor in the quantity and quality of the end product. So with that said if we keep taking content for free then it is only logical that the quality and quantity of content will decline, you don't need to be Einstein to figure this out.
As you say you live in a small town and your laws are lax, but are you anonymous in your town? I wouldnt think so. Im sure that because of the tightly nit community the folks that live in your town are more acquainted and hence there is lack of anonymity and hence their does not need to be a heavy enforcement of law. Because you know when you go and steal Uncle Ebert's blinds chances are the whole town will find out and you, the person not the cyber enigma Cthippo but the person with a name and a family and possibly a reputation will be affected.
You see the big world and cyber space is not a little town but a huge forest and in this forest we cannot be totally free so Control over Cyber Space is inevitable. I say again take a away anonymity and you create responsibility, thats the first thing we teach kids when they enter the world. Remember this Little Billy, when you go to class play nice with your friends, because if you are a bad boy then people wont like you, and your mommy will be upset, one day youll hear something like this Billy when you go online, you have to behave dont steal or insult people because Mommy will be upset and dont talk to strangers only play with your verified friends okay