New Consortium to Push UDI and Include DRM 264
MarsGov writes "Intel, Apple, Samsung, LG, Nat Semi and Silicon Image formed a consortium to promote Unified Display Interface (UDI) as the new standard to connect computers to monitors and TVs. UDI will be HDMI and HDCP "anti-piracy" compatible. "
Hardware DRM Serves One Purpose (Score:5, Insightful)
Does anyone really think hardware manufacturers are promoting DRM to fight "piracy"? Kind-hearted, generous manufacturers just looking out for the poor little media industry? No, they are racing to be the first with a de-facto DRM system everyone has to use, so that they can license their DRM and be the toll-collectors for all digital communication. Nothing more, nothing less.
Whether a sufficient majority of corporations ends up accepting one of the DRM systems, or Congress ends up enacting one of them as law, it has virtually nothing to do with stopping "piracy" and everything to do with eliminating competitors, both in the hardware and media industries.
Re:Hardware DRM Serves One Purpose (Score:5, Insightful)
Therefore the features ARE in there to please the locked-up content creators, and to get their systems blessed by those content creators so they will allow their content to interface to it and the systems will sell.
That's an important distinction because nothing in these locked up media systems prevents the creation of alternative liberally licensed media: there is no "toll collector" aspect to it I can see.
If you don't like the way the locked-up media is being increasingly locked up, just think "What would rms do?"
Re:Hardware DRM Serves One Purpose (Score:4, Insightful)
See, that's not entirely true. In fact, hardware has the capability to ignore DRM, which is why the entertainment industry is always trying to get laws passed that REQUIRE hardware to consult the DRM in the content before playing said content.
However, you're right, it is to "please" the industry, because if the industry is "pleased" then that particular brand of DRM will show up in the laws the RI/MP/**/AA write for the protection of the American People, and thus licensing fees will roll in, because, you know, you HAVE to license it or your product breaks laws.
These companies see DRM as something that is just a truth, and laws will be enacted regarding it, so why fight it, make money licensing it. Or in the case of this consortium, don't license it, but the best offense is defense, so protect yourself from having to pay to license another company's technology. That's the point of this consortium - everyone agree on a standard, and noone will collect while others are paying out the nose.
Re:Hardware DRM Serves One Purpose (Score:3, Insightful)
> has the capability to ignore DRM, which is why the
> entertainment industry is always trying to get laws
> passed that REQUIRE hardware to consult the DRM in
> the content before playing said content.
Considering HDTV-type appliances, and not consoles, the laws I heard about all involve a demand (bit, descriptor or whatever) about DRM encoded in the *media* that must be honoured by the players if present.
Neither the laws nor the DRM apply to med
Re:Hardware DRM Serves One Purpose (Score:3, Insightful)
Additionally, DRM is incapable of making exceptions where the law makes exceptions. This is particularly true where the exception at issue is fair use, since any manner of use is capable of being fair, in the right circumstances. DRM also does not expire when a work enters the public doma
Re:Hardware DRM Serves One Purpose (Score:4, Insightful)
No there isn't. The spelling of the one you posted indicates that the publishers might be writing it for areas outside the US, but being familiar with US copyright law, I'll assume that that is not the case.
This programme is under copyright protection
Not relevant.
and may be shown in private homes only
Basically because there's no private performance right in copyright. Copyright, with regards to simply showing a movie, only exists for public showings or showings to people beyond a family and its social acquaintances. So this is basically just restating the law.
Any rental, lease, barter deal or repurchase,
copying, reproduction or recording as well as
public exhibition or similar commercial acts
serving the same economic purpose, or their
sufferance, unless permitted by the copyright
holder or under applicable law, will result in
civil and/or criminal action being taken.'
So, aside from that being a threat, not a license, what it says is that if the applicable law permits it, they won't do anything. Which stands to reason, since they can't. Again, it's just restating the law, it's not a license.
BUT you have to buy the encumbered junk first. If you decide not to give money to the people treating you like that, then it causes you no problems at all.
Not good enough. I'd rather change the law so that it's prohibitively difficult for people to treat me like that. Specifically, I'd like to make copyright and DRM mutually exclusive and to have the law encourage (possibly by having the government do it) breaking DRM systems. Legal protections are fine (to a degree), but technical ones are totally unacceptable. Adhesive licensing to the general public as a substitute for sales is also something I'd bar; publishers can either sell copies outright, or not sell to the public, or negotiate licenses, or offer licenses that aren't substitutes for outright sales.
Re:Hardware DRM Serves One Purpose-Free ride over. (Score:2)
You've misread my statement. It's not the content producer, it's the hardware manufacturer that will have to obey the DRM that exists in the content - thus denying the ability to record a show on a DVR, or denying copy ability, or timeshift beyond 90 minutes, or whatever the DRM says. So the content providers KNOW that the hardware sold in the US will abide by their rules, thus killing fair use.
Re:Hardware DRM Serves One Purpose (Score:5, Interesting)
1) You have to buy hardware with DRM built into it -- otherwise you can't communicate with anyone else who's in the DRM chain.
Usually this DRM is protected by patents and/or trade-secrets, so every individual piece of hardware needs a license from the IP holder. At the very least, it requires knowledge of private encryption keys and/or registration of public encryption keys with a central authority. This probably won't be a free service, and by definition can't be a public service, otherwise the private keys will be exposed to the public and the system does nothing.
2) Despite what they tell us, a working DRM system cannot freely permit unscreened content from third-party, independent producers.
Here's why: if the system allows unflagged media to enter and be displayed normally, it allows an independent content creator to release non-DRM-encumbered content. It also allows anyone with the know-how to bypass the DRM on a single piece of licensed content and re-release it without the DRM. Thereafter, anyone using p2p sharing will just download the re-released, non-DRM version, and it will be appropriately non-flagged as if it were a piece of independent content. Voila, the DRM chain is broken.
Therefore, the only DRM system that has a chance of working is one that requires all content to be registered in some manner, even if the registration is provided without charge (at a loss) to independent creators. This means you can't distribute your newest novel without going through a corporate/government approval body.
It's certainly possible no functional DRM system will ever enter widespread use, and I hope this is the case. However, the only functional DRM systems will meet both of the above criteria. In my limited foresight, that is what the DRM supporters are actually attempting, only in small steps at first.
(I wrote this reply soon after you posted, but Slashdot's excessive anti-anonymity measures have delayed its posting for over 58 minutes. For this reason, I'll be unable to reply again even should your life depend upon a response.)
quite right, and one more point (Score:3, Insightful)
Additionally, however, one should be aware that this is likely no accident: the RIAA and MPAA members are probably more concerned about new competitors entering the market and the distribution of open content than about piracy. So, while the ostensible goal of DRM is to curb privacy, it is ultimately more about creating barriers to entry.
Re:Hardware DRM Serves One Purpose (Score:4, Interesting)
In other words, any DRM system that would actually prevent copyright infringment would necessarily disallow un-"protected" content, because any method of allowing non-DRM content (including all Free content) would allow cracked (i.e. de-DRM'd) content as well.No, this isn't FUD. In fact, we're only one step away from it now. For example, SSL certificates aren't free, unless they're self-signed. And because of the point made above, the equivalent of self-signed (or unsigned) certificates could not be allowed at all in the DRM system, or it stops working. Therefore, there would necessarily be a central licensing [gnu.org] authority to which all content must be submitted. Moreover, there's no reason to belive licensing would be free, because Verisign isn't free.
Make no mistake, any DRM system that worked as I describe would be very, very bad. Not just because it would create a "DRM tax," but because it would also make censorship trivial merely by witholding licenses from anyone that Central Licensing doesn't like. In effect, we would all become digital serfs, with Microsoft and the RIAA (or this consortium -- whoever wins the battle) as our Lord and Master.
Re:Hardware DRM Serves One Purpose (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hardware DRM Serves One Purpose (Score:2)
> even non-protected content to a non-DRM display device
What makes you think that this is the case? The laws being mooted involve "Broadcast flags" and so on to indicate protected content that needs the crypto handshake. Do you really think HD camcorders, for example, will be unable to display recorded content at HD resolution?
Re:Hardware DRM Serves One Purpose (Score:2)
Re:Hardware DRM Serves One Purpose (Score:2)
HDCP (Score:5, Funny)
Great... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Great... (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, I have karma to burn
Sounds cool (Score:5, Funny)
That would be awesome.
Re:Sounds cool (Score:2, Interesting)
There used to be. It was called copyright law. Then large numbers of selfish people decided they were above the law, and it ceased to be as effective at fighting copyright infringement. You can't really blame the media industry for fighting back (though you certainly can challenge their methods and fight to defend your legitimate rights as a user of the content).
Re:Sounds cool (Score:2, Insightful)
Hmmm, your post seems to have gotten scrambled during transmission. I'll fix it up for you.
There used to be. It was called copyright law.
Re:Sounds cool (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, it surely was bad when industry decided they were above the law of the land and got Congress to create unconstitutional copyright laws that created eternal monopolies on content to people who weren't the creators of that content. Once citizens saw that copyright was about greed rather than about allowing artists to make a living off their work, it ceased to be effective.
Oh! I'm sorry, I misunderstood you. When you said "above the law" I naturally thought you meant the bastards who have shredded the law of the land in order to maximize their profits, not the guy who wants to make a mix CD for his girlfriend. Yeah, we really have to fight that guy.
Re:Sounds cool (Score:5, Insightful)
You're exactly right. And those people were mostly Disney, and the Gershwin heirs. [wikipedia.org] They decided that the words that were in the Constitution regarding copyright and public domain works weren't good enough. So they bribed Mary Bono and some others in Washington into changing the rules, thereby freezing the date at which works enter the public domain.
So hey. You wanna play rough? That's cool. But it's fucking ON now.
Re:Sounds cool (Score:2)
We're talking about using DRM that restricts the user's access to content today, not the absurd increases in copyright durations legislated by several national governments recently. Please take your straw man outside the building to burn.
My take on copyright - to stop the assumptions (Score:3, Interesting)
OK, let me be clear, because I'm getting tired of people (not just you) reading things into my posts that aren't there.
I am no apologist for the big media industries. I think their lobbying to get copyright terms extended to almost geological timescales is both morally wrong and probably bad for business in the long run too. I think fair use provisions should be rights, and should explicitly include common things like making back-ups, format-shifting and making compilations, and moreover I think any attem
Re:Sounds cool (Score:2)
Of course you have the added problem that the motivation which encourages consumers to copy content, is exactly the same one that encourages content creators to seek ever more payment for it: the deep-seated Cave-man hunter-gatherer instinct. Twenty thousand years of evolution have not altered the instinct, just created new ways for it to ma
Re:Sounds cool (Score:2, Insightful)
My problem is that if a minority of selfish people hadn't abused the system on a massive scale, then we'd probably have viable, reasonably-priced on-line distribution today, and that would have been a benefit to everyone. Instead, the lawbreakers are driving all the paranoid media industry bigwigs away from that model, and towards DRM-restricted crap that makes it hard and/or illegal for the rest of us to do otherwise reasonable things like we used to. People like you have started a shooting war with the me
Re:Sounds cool (Score:2)
DRM versus the freeing of information (Score:5, Insightful)
UDI is the final step in allowing them to control the old media formats (TV and radio generally). It WILL happen, as Congress and those who control the old formats fail to see that they're outdated and no one cares.
The Internet blew up, in my opinion, based entirely on people's ability to be heard and to hear others. You're seeing millions of bloggers who write freely in order to be heard, not in order to sell their thoughts by coercing others not to copy them. You see people quoted (not always being referenced either), you see people copying and re-posting, and you're seeing massive "piracy" of every copywritten work. Copyright not only failed, but ignoring it created the biggest form of media in literally years. The Internet is at least two orders of magnitude bigger than all the old-media productions in all of history, combined.
What is the next step? Major media companies will continue to restrict content, and billions of small content creates will get together in tiny groups and capture that market. Podcasting is replacing the radio for a small percentage today, but in 10 years where will radio be? It will be an overregulated monopoly that no one listens to because it attempts to target too broad a market.
TV and cable will be another forgotten phenomenon, at least in the way we watch it today. Hundreds of channels of regulated media can not compete with millions of vidcasts, especially as production qualities go up.
Look, folks, DRM doesn't matter. Communists wanted everyone equal, libertarians wanted everyone free. The Internet offers both side a solution that could never come from law or regulation or mandates -- people able to meet one another's needs, disregarding borders and laws and restrictions that we faced for hundreds of years.
DRM? Go for it, big producers. I'm finding new forms of entertainment every day, and it doesn't come in a pretty package and it isn't advertised by beautiful people.
Re:DRM versus the freeing of information (Score:5, Insightful)
You do seem to forget that billions of people actually like pretty packages and beautiful people, and that's why they pirate the work in those forms, performed by those beautiful people. Some people even take on projects that they can only afford to produce if they know that they can sell their work for actual, spendable money. People who deliberately seek out bar bands, dinner theater actors, and street magicians for their entertainment always have been able to, and always will be able to. People who want to see what someone with the budget for a cast of thousands, exotic locations, thousands of CGI processors chugging away, etc., aren't going to go away. But the people producing works like that can't do so if everything they do is ripped off. That doesn't matter to you, because you don't like that sort of entertainment. Which, is fine, since the people you do like aren't worried about the cash flow anyway, and even if you do buy media from such people, they probably wouldn't want to stamp their data as rights-managed, lest they offend you and their other fan.
Re:DRM versus the freeing of information (Score:4, Interesting)
When Serenity came out in theaters, I liked the plot so much I went 4 times (x2). When the DVD came out yesterday, I bought one copy for myself and 6 for presents. Yet when Serenity was released on ThePirateBay, I downloaded it until I could buy it. Why did I pay Joss Whedon and Universal for their DVD? Because I wanted to support their FUTURE efforts, not their past ones.
Nothing prevents content producers from protecting their creations in a free market. I'd say you have a good argument up to 1995 or so, but with the Internet, content producers can completely control their own content with zero laws. All they have to do is create stronger encryption standards, get together and make hardware that follows it, and they're there. That's what they're doing here. I am completely fine with content creators doing this -- I don't believe in copyright so I don't believe in fair use.
The consumers will also be fine with DRM. It will only succeed if it meets the needs of all parties. If it doesn't, another format will succeed. You can't stop entertainment, but you can stop those who don't allow every party to profit from the transaction.
Re:DRM versus the freeing of information (Score:2)
A
Re:DRM versus the freeing of information (Score:4, Interesting)
Right now, they rely on the DMCA and other stupid laws to protect their BADLY WRITTEN DRM. If they want stronger DRM, they have to realize they can't rely on laws to protect bad programming.
I personally wouldn't buy a proprietary media format, but if consumers do, then producers should be free to make whatever they want. I believe that competition will let the cream rise to the top.
I don't believe in copyright either, but, due to its legal side, DRM is like copyright only worse. You may not believe in fair use, but copyright with fair use is less repugnant than copyright without it.
Let's ignore copyright for a moment and look at the most restrictive protections on content not using the law: subscriptions. Many writers (including myself) have private subscription newsletters that people pay to receive. They could copy these newsletters (and some do) the majority don't -- they want the information and they don't want many others knowing about it. I look at some of the US$1000 per year newsletters I used to subscribe to and I never saw them hitting the public eye.
The same is true with any information. You can sell information that is valuable, and you can sell information that isn't. If it doesn't have much value, you have to make your money by offering it to the widest audience at the lowest price. $2 for a TV show per person (x10,000) versus $1000 for an investment newsletter (x20) is the same money. Which has a bigger market, and which is more valuable?
Copyright can't change simple economics. If you make a product that is good quality and people want to see more, they'll pay for it. If they don't care about it, they won't.
Re:DRM versus the freeing of information (Score:3, Interesting)
Hence, people see NOTHING wrong with recording and copying TV. People have taped shows and loaned them to friends since beginning of time, and such tapings are considered to be mostly worthless. Yes, most people understand that making a
Re:DRM versus the freeing of information (Score:3, Insightful)
I keep hearing that, yet the industry keeps pumping out high-budget movies. Should I assume, then, that the rate of piracy isn't really very bad?
Re:DRM versus the freeing of information (Score:2)
My comment was in response to someone that wants to abolish copyrights. Bad as piracy is, at least the filmaker, or author, or musician actually does have recourse when someone deliberately, flagrantly rips them off. If I can't copyright my $100M film, what's stopping someone from making copies and selling them for $0.10 each in Taiwan (oh, well, that's already
Re:DRM versus the freeing of information (Score:2)
Re:DRM versus the freeing of information (Score:2)
Come again? Exactly how many fans of your blog do you think there are on Slashdot?
doesn't appear to be required, though? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:doesn't appear to be required, though? (Score:4, Informative)
Ah, great catch (Score:2)
and obsolete 15 seconds after release (Score:5, Insightful)
DUH
Next idea please.
Here's one - track down those that traffic in the pirated goods, and arrest them.
Quit treating customers as criminals.
Re:and obsolete 15 seconds after release (Score:2)
Re:and obsolete 15 seconds after release (Score:3, Insightful)
DUH
Well the DUH part was correct. It doesn't work. They know about that sort of attack and it is the first thing they designed it to prevent. It uses assymetric crypto and authentication signatures. Sticking an extre device in the middle of the line just gives you encrypted garbage. You can't read any of the data, and the raw encryption key never appears on the d
Apple DRM (Score:2, Interesting)
Riddle me this... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Riddle me this... (Score:2)
Legitimate free music or video won't be tagged, and so the DRM software ignores it; it can be output on any device.
Note that this is mostly about protecting music and/or video, not software (except by
You miss the point (Score:2)
Then all the pirates have to do is get the content (analogue hole as a last resort) and re-release it sans tag. If the "copy-protected" devices display anything without a tag, they are effectively useless.
The only workable method is to only display things with a VALID tag and lock everything else out: much harder to beat.
Re:You miss the point (Score:2)
I wouldn't expect them to try to require devices to play only tagged items. If they do, they'd have to authorize a number of content providers, and with that many copies of the key running around the pirates would certainly be able to get
Re:Riddle me this... (Score:2)
Another Standard (Score:3, Insightful)
From Channel Register:The UDI initiative is being led by Intel and its new best friend, Apple, along with Samsung, LG, Nat Semi and Silicon Image. The likes of Nvidia, Foxconn, JAE Electronics, THine Electronics and FCI are also contributing to the spec.
However, they've got competition. The Video Electronics Standards Association (VESA) has already begun work on DisplayPort, its answer to DVI's successor standard. DisplayPort is set to support both internal and external monitor connections, and can be used with multimedia kit.
So, once more we have two groups vying to make their technology a "standard", which then leads to a protracted battle over whose "standard" should be adopted. And in the midst, some technology will likely come along to make the new "standard(s)" obsolescent.
Re:Another Standard:good! (Score:2)
When you can choose between one display standard which has been hacked and one which hasn't....
Competition is not just going to drive down prices, it is also going to lower the efforts done on DRM.
Re:Another Standard:good! (Score:2)
I don't want to have to choose. I want one format, one standard, agreed upon by the majority. Rememebr VHS vs. Beta? Beta died and that probably wasn't a good thing, but the fact is that even after VHS ascended to the heights, we then had the European PAL format and all this other rubbish.
When you can choose between one display standard which has been hacked and one which hasn't....
That is of course the weakness -
Wrong UDI Link (Score:2, Informative)
What's the point? (Score:4, Insightful)
I know HDMI has a couple of issues, it currently doesn't hass 6 channel high definition audio along the cable, ie SACD and DVDA, but I believe that's due with v1.2 or 1.3, it's on the schedule anyway. The other issue I think is that it only supports video resolutions, ie 720p and 1080i/p. but I'm sure this could be easily revised in the next version to support other resolutions too.
make sure it has backwards compatibility and what's the problem? why do we need yet another connector when we have, and are already using a good one.
is there any other reason to introduce UDI?
dave
HDMI doesn't thave enough bandwidth... (Score:2)
Without dual-link, HDMI is useless for computers in the future. The most expensive (and thus highest revenue and profit) panels already use dual-link DVI. Additionally, technically, 1080p cannot even be carried on HDMI or single-link DVI because the bandwidth is too high. However, companies are stretching the spec to make HDMI (a
Re:HDMI doesn't thave enough bandwidth... (Score:2)
HDMI also includes support for 8-channel uncompressed digital audio. Beginning with version 1.2, HDMI now supports up to 8 channels of one-bit audio. One-bit audio is what is used on Super Audio CDs.
Without dual-link, HDMI is useless for computers in the future. The most expensive (and thus highest revenue and profit) panels alre
1080p is 1080p/60 (Score:2)
As to single link, it is enough for 1920x1200, for example, Apple sells 23" single-link monitors that do 1920x1200. But, depending on the size of the front and back porches (both horizontally and vertically), a signal with less spatial paylo
Re:What's the point? (Score:2)
DVD Jon will crack it! (Score:3, Interesting)
Good Luck to Them (Score:2, Interesting)
Another thing to challenge and have broken.
Sooner or later somebody is going to wake up, charge a fair price, allow fair use, and make a profit without alienating their customers
On the other hand, how long did Rip Van Winkle sleep?
Batteries (Score:4, Insightful)
wont stop anything. (Score:2)
Why am I violently violating some poor movie companies copyright as I type? well I'm evil and want to watch the movie on my portable mpeg4 media device. I know, pure unadulterated evil.
I have long ago decided that I need to become skilled in breaking the law so that I can have my entert
Well, exactly (Score:2)
Not that I seriously believe anyone will be able to stop me doing what I wish with my own PC, no matter how clever they think they are. I'm doing this because the ripper software I have runs on Win
What year are we living in? (Score:2)
UDI FAQ Last Updated September 7, 1999
Shouldn't they try and update the site a bit so at least you don't feel like you are reading 6 year old information?
Re:What year are we living in? (Score:2)
Re:What year are we living in? (Score:2)
It's the wrong interface - Uniform Driver Interface instead of the Unified Display Interface.
What does drivers have to do with anything? (Score:2)
Why talk about something called Unified Display Interface and then link to the site www.projectudi.org [projectudi.org] which concerns itself about the Uniform Driver Interface?!?. Slashdot editors at its best I guess...
Not that the Uniform Driver Interface is that great idea either, it's some kind of let's make some cozy wrapper that lets hardware manufacturers cross platform binary only drivers.
And what about Unified Display Interface? The only thing I can find about it is the sensationalist blurb on The Register. Hav
Re:What does drivers have to do with anything? (Score:2)
Bad Link???? (Score:2)
...I remember when... (Score:2)
So? (Score:2)
So it is not really a problem.
Direct attack at free software and open hardware (Score:2)
Defeat THIS piracy technique! (Score:5, Interesting)
From the current flowing in the scan coils, we can determine where the electron beam is on the screen {though to generate a standard timing signal, we really only care about when it jumps to the left hand side or the top}. From the three grid drives, we can get the levels of red, green and blue light emitted by the nearest pixel.
Apply some rudimentary signal conditioning which, if you could get the circuitry to fit on an A6 size piece of breadboard, you really would not be trying at all; and you have a set of signals suitable for feeding into any old-fashioned SCART socket on any old-fashioned TV set or DVD+RW recorder.
There is no way to protect any kind of content against the "dummy CRT" attack -- and once it has been successfully applied, the content is now unprotected for all time
Re:Defeat THIS piracy technique! (Score:4, Interesting)
This past week I was able to play with a Canon XL1HD camera. and with a small amount of setup I recorded a "protected" Live PPV content off our Calbe system digital box with a Hd projector this camera and a $9.95 35MM slide to Video converter box I had laying around at home.
The resulting copy looked only slightly worse than the origional signal on the Cable TV. if viewed on a PC or a sane sized HD television it was highly acceptable. It only looked muddy whe shown on the projector at it's normal 10' size.
So it's already broken. I can take what was recorded and compress lightly and have something that is better than most illegal copies of shows or movies on the net.
it was mostly done as a proof example to the Exec's here that were touting how secure the content is.
Re:Defeat THIS piracy technique! (Score:4, Interesting)
That's only half the battle (Score:4, Insightful)
Sort of. This is an excellent, clever way to copy the content. However, consider that the copy you have captured may still be watermarked or otherwise uniquely identifiable.
From the perspectives of piracy-detection and legal-prosecution, you may still be on dangerous ground: copies made as you suggest may be tracable and still cause grief for you or anyone posessing them, depending on how the courts interpret "fair-use" that week. I hope using the technique you suggest for personal backup purposes would be legitimate, but you've clearly circumvented a digital rights mechanism (and possibly left evidence in the copy) and I am not a lawyer.
Re:Defeat THIS piracy technique! (Score:3, Insightful)
Look to China (Score:5, Interesting)
Follow
Overhauling Intellectual Property Laws --or-- Balancing Capitalism and Communism [slashdot.org]
for my economic opus and ode to media bashing.
Re:Look to China (Score:3, Insightful)
Your paper would get a slightly warmer reception in the US political arena if you change the title to:
"Overhauling Intellectual Property Laws --or-- Balancing Capitalism and Kiddy Porn".
-
Antipiracy compatible... (Score:2)
I wonder if they even got the definition of piracy [uncyclopedia.org] right...
20 minutes into the future (Score:2)
They don't want to just control copying, next they'll want to remove your TV's OFF switch!
So What Does this Mean for "old monitors"... (Score:3, Interesting)
New /. design to break non-IE browsers with popups (Score:2)
Re:New /. design to break non-IE browsers with pop (Score:2)
Re:New /. design to break non-IE browsers with pop (Score:2)
/etc/hosts, here I come
Re:New /. design to break non-IE browsers with pop (Score:2)
Re:New /. design to break non-IE browsers with pop (Score:2)
Doesn't matter (Score:3, Interesting)
It can be legislated to hell and back and it still won't make a bit of difference. I guarantee you a lot of countries have bigger problems than enforcing American patents/copyrights and have no interest in complying with any anti-circumvention laws either. Someone will crack it, the crack will get out into the wild, and it'll be like the DRM never existed.
Let them waste their money developing expensive DRM schemes that a 17 year old in Romania will break 6 months after it's released. The laws don't exist to prosecute this kind of thing in many countries, nor should they. MPAA/RIAA tired of losing money? Stop producing crap and people will buy it. But look at their members' profit/loss sheets recently, what they say in public is in polar opposite to what they tell their shareholders...
Project UDI is unrelated. (Score:3, Informative)
On the other hand, Project UDI is a very cool technology that people should be supporting, so I guess the extra exposure could help, as long as people don't confuse UDI (Uniform Driver Interface) with UDI (Unified Display Interface)... *sigh*
Let's color "DRM" right (Score:2)
Eivind.
I'm pleased... (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.securityfocus.com/news/236 [securityfocus.com]
Its going to be really interesting to see how successful the new consortium is in forcing US copyright legislation on the rest of the world.
Or, perhaps, hardware not made in the US, or for US export only, will have versions of the interface that don't include DHCP. Gee. I wonder how long it will take for US consumers to buy their hardware from outside the US instead.
Why is SCO so heavily involved in this? (Score:5, Interesting)
Also worth noting: there's nobody from Microsoft, and nobody from Red Hat. IBM has some people, but IBM is so big they send a few people to any standards effort.
Re:I guess the movie studios and music companies.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I guess the movie studios and music companies.. (Score:2)
In other news,
Re:I guess the movie studios and music companies.. (Score:3, Insightful)
That's a big IF! Current video, just like today's average stereo and even buggy, virus prone Windows, is plenty good enough quality for millions of current users. Any HD TV upgrading incentive is nowhere nearly as compelling as the transition from VCR to DVD or from vinyl LPs to audio CD were about 20 years ago. Both vinyls and VCR tapes, for example were subject to wear and reduced quality, each time they were played. There was nothing even the
Bullying isn't necessary. (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, if DRM becomes law, I'll be among the first to break it.
Re:Bullying isn't necessary. (Score:2)
Lobbyists will stop that. (Score:2)
Uh-oh, you just told them the hole in their logic! Now they'll have to get their lobbyists in gear to make it a crime to:
1. Manufacture, advertise, sell or possess a display device that isn't protected by DRM. The fine will be $100,000 per incident with an incident defined as infinite theoretical losses effectively making your fine infinite. Just write a sideways "8" in the amou
Re:Lobbyists will stop that. (Score:2)
I credit slashdot for stopping the bill. Believe it or not after links to elected us officials came in posts the bill was canned. Thousands of angry emails scared the politicians.
Take a lesson.
Too bad this is a consortium and not a bill. Otherwise the slashdot effect can alter the laws for our own good.
Re:Protection (Score:2)