Similar in spirit?

Posted Oct 5, 2006 5:48 UTC (Thu) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]

""The part I have a problem with is
"DRM technologies are based on the principle that a third party has more influence over your devices than you, and that their interests will override yours when they come in conflict. That is even true where your interest is perfectly legitimate and legal, and possibly also for your own data".

This is FUD, that has no basis in fact, nor does it have a basis in law.""

What exactly do you think DRM does? Have you taken a look at the DMCA ever?

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMCA
""The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a United States copyright law which criminalizes production and dissemination of technology that can circumvent measures taken to protect copyright, not merely infringement of copyright itself, and heightens the penalties for copyright infringement on the Internet. Passed on May 14, 1998 by a unanimous vote in the United States Senate and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 28, 1998, the DMCA amended title 17 of the US Code to extend the reach of copyright, while limiting the liability of Online Providers from copyright infringement by their users.""

All 100% fact.

What this effectively makes it completely illegal to attempt to, or tell people about, or distribute programs or software, that circumvent any sort of digital copyright protection scemes IRREGARDLESS of the user's intention.

So what DRM does is provide a way to control what software you are and are not allowed to run on your computer by wrapping it in the notion that these restrictions are intended to protect copyrighted material.

For instance you have 'FairPlay' versions Windows Media Video 10. These are DRM encrusted media files we are told are intended to protect the copyrights of various artists who produce music.

Now effectively due to the DMCA it is ILLEGAL to play these files on Linux. Because in order to do that you have to break the DRM encryption to do so and if your a 'pirate' you could use the same software that plays back music to copy music. Thusly enabling support of FairPlay in Linux with open source software is a U.S. Federal crime.

Now this DOES NOTHING TO STOP PIRACY. People have found easy ways to work around DRM restrictions and provide content on the internet. Once one copy is out there then anybody can find it and download it. Effectively DRM delays music being 'stolen' by a matter of minutes.

What it does accomplish though is it allows Microsoft to try to convince folks like the RIAA to sell music under their Fairplay DRM. Once people purchase the music then Microsoft, protected by the U.S. Federal Government, can now dictate to these people what software and operating systems they are allowed to use to to play back the music they purchased and what sort of other audio devices they are allowed to use.

Apple does a similar thing with their DRM'd Itunes service. They restrict people from licensing their DRM technology for MP3 players and such and they don't let other people create software to play it. If somebody from another country with no DMCA-like restrictions creates a compatable player or software then Apple will change the format of the DRM to effectively break their software or hardware. It does not have anything to do with protecting from piracy because Apple themselves allow end users to burn cdrom copies of music with no loss of fidality. The time it takes for a new song on Itunes to appear on the internet in a P2p site is measured in _minutes_.

So this does NOTHING to stop piracy. However because Apple says its a digital encryption intended to protect copyright then they now are protected by government law and can now control what software, what operating systems, what media devices, you are allowed to listen to music you purchase from them.

Basicly they are using DRM to make return customers of Ipods.

Same thing with the HDCP from Intel and friends.

HDCP is 'high definition copyright protection'. It is a encryption sceme for hardware they claim intended to 'protect' High definition content from being copied. HDCP, however, seemed to be a rather weak encryption method and was cracked years ago.

So it accomplishes absolutely nothing in preventing real piracy. Remember once you get one or two copies of unencrypted data on the internet it's easily aviable to millions and millions of users. For people with high speed internet it's easier and quicker to steal ex-drm'd content off the internet then it is to go down to the store and buy a new dvd.

However what it effectively does is this. That when you go out and in the near future by a High-Def or Blueray DVD it will probably have HDCP protections.

In order to legally play it back you will be required to purchase a special DVD player (no suprises), purchase a motherboard with a 'encrypted media path', purchase Vista 64bit (32bit won't work), purchase a new video card that support the protected media path, and purchase a new video monitor that supports HDCP.

Even though in other countries you can buy devices to circumvent this and allow older hardwar to work, in the United States it is illegal to produce or distribute or buy or use those devices because they could possibly be used to circumvent the 'protections' and allow 'piracy'.

OR if you want to use a HD dvd, if you got one now it probably won't work with HDCP protected content. You'll have to buy a new one.

It won't work with any HD television you may own right now either.. You'll have to by a new one.

It's a huge freaking scam. Over and over and over again any time you see 'DRM' it turns out to be almost exactly like the above.

HOWEVER NOTHING IN THE GPLv3 does anything about that. Nothing at all.

As far as Dinsey and 'Americanism' goes.. Disney sucks. I am proud to be American and am pretty freaking conservative.

It's just a snow job that they are for family values and such nowadays. That was over in the 60's. The Disney corporation owns many many major music recording, television, and movie studios. A lot of it produces the most vile anti-american, anti-family, BS you ever heard. And they'll happily do it as long as it sells and it doesn't get associated with the Disney name. It's not that they are anti-anything, they are just very pro-money. They do what sells. Now I am pro-money, pro-profit, pro-capitolism and all that, but I like to think that I am somewhat moral about it how I go about it.