More DRM Trouble

[ebrke]

Excerpt from Arstechnica on proposed United States legislation:The EFF has managed to get an advance copy of proposed legislation (PDF) that is scheduled to be introduced this Thursday. Entitled the "Analog Content Security Preservation Act of 2005," this bit of MPAA-drafted work will have a hearing in the House Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property. For the most part, it's the same fear-mongering song and dance we're used to seeing (some of you may remember that just over three years ago the MPAA was asking Congress to force analog recording devices to obey DRM, and this is more or less doing this exact same thing). If the MPAA has their way, all new devices capable of receiving video input must obey two DRM technologies, VEIL and CGMS-A (Video Encoded Invisible Light technology and Content Generation Management System—Analog, respectively). Such devices, be they DVRs, VCRs, analog input cards for a PC, etc., will have to listen for DRM markers in analog content and obey any restrictions on display or management (e.g., copying). Contrary to what I've read elsewhere, this is not limited to devices manufactured in the United States. It applies to all devices available through legal channels, including importation. Furthermore, I'd like to note that CGMS-A is the bandit behind the various copy control snafus that have been witnessed on the likes of TiVo and Microsoft's Windows Media Center Edition.Or, to simplify, any device that can record video will be illegal to import or purchase in a year, if it doesn't obey DRM. Not only does this affect consumer electronics, but it would also have severe affects on computer hardware as well, which will have to provide secure pathways for all analog content. And operating systems based on open-source software would be in double trouble, BECAUSE THE DRM IS CLOSED SOURCE.

[epp_b]

I'm going to say this loud and clear...I hate DRM!!! :rant:I hate everything it means!!! :rant:I hate how it completely defies and undoes everything computers were ever meant to do!!! :rant:I hate that it is completly based on lies and greed and serves the sole purpose of corporate greed and that they feed us some garbage line about it being for anti-piracy!!! :rant:I hate that, somehow, no one "up there" in government gives a crap about fair use and how none of them can see through this corporate deceit!!! :rant:I hate how they can't get it through their thick political skulls that fair use does mean something!!! :rant:I hate how we have morons making laws about things they haven't even the slightest grasp on!!! :rant:I hate that there are so many ignorant users who don't give a rats behind for knowing anything about it!!! :rant:I hate how it is the last straw against Open Source software because most commercial software makers are too stupid to make products that the customer would want to pay for over an Open Source counterpart!!! I will have lost all faith in Governments' abilities for technical issues if this happens (surprising that I haven't when the US introduced the DCMA). They are a hopeless bunch of morons who go wherever the money is - for the corporate world and for them.I will reiterate what I read in another post online: this world is full of idiots and the people who vote for them.And, BTW, this is a canuck getting up-in-arms about this issue here. For once, I'm actually glad we have a liberal government who sits on their hands and does absolutely nothing.(BTW, what's that ArsTechnica link?)

Edited November 10, 2005 by epp_b

[muckshifter]

Love the smillie ... All I see this "Law" doing is forcing more people to do illegal things. We need to "vote" with our own pockets ... and NOT buy the stuff in the first place. Now what country shall I move to next.

[epp_b]

ll I see this "Law" doing is forcing more people to do illegal things.

Exactly...

We need to "vote" with our own pockets ... and NOT buy the stuff in the first place.[

Unfortunately, I don't see that working. If you'll see that one of my points are that there are too many people who don't care and don't care to know, how can we expect them to vote out of their pockets?"Ooh, look that this new DVD player!", Said the customer with stars in his eyes...unbeknownst to him that there was an evil and sisister plot lurking inside... Edited November 10, 2005 by epp_b

[Guest LilBambi]

LOL! Tell us what you really feel epp_b. ;)You can find the link and other links about this at my blog entry today.http://www.bambismusings.combut the direct link to the article is:http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/analog-hole.arsthanks erbke for the link!I have been doing that since they took Napster down muckshifter.

Edited November 10, 2005 by LilBambi

[epp_b]

LOL! Tell us what you really feel epp_b

You know me...tell it as it is! Unfortunately, there are no words in any language that could express the extent to which I absolutely hate DRM. It is truely evil, as it is centric to greed and deceit.Thanks for the link.(BTW, do you have an RSS feed for your blog, Fran?) Edited November 10, 2005 by epp_b

[Guest LilBambi]

Sure do! Thanks for asking.BambisMusings

[epp_b]

Thanks

[ebrke]

Sorry I didn't post the link. Thanks, Bambi!The only faint whisper of hope about this is that that some congresspeople seem dubious, but no doubt they will be swayed by large campaign contributions. I'm truly sick over this. To think they could actually force us to run windows (or mac I guess) because nothing else will be able to run their proprietary DRM. Maybe IBM and associated companies who are pushing open software will be of some help.I wonder if they'll try to outlaw Live distros too.

Edited November 10, 2005 by ebrke

[Guest LilBambi]

I hear ya, ebrke.We may actually end up with a better literacy rate in this country if they pass this ...

[epp_b]

Corporations are just too stinking lazy and stupid to build applications that people would rather use over free (and much better) Open Source alternatives. Their only resort is to use unethical legal tactics to outlaw them! This is just plain disgusting.

Edited November 10, 2005 by epp_b

[ebrke]

I've been reading over the language in the proposed legislation to see if we would be committing a crime by installing linux on a box purchased with windows and DRM software, and I can't make up my mind. All the language says "purchase" and "sell"--how that would apply to a distro I downloaded at no cost I'm not sure. Then again, outlawing linux is just what these people would love to do.

Edited November 10, 2005 by ebrke

[greengeek]

Anything that has been invented by humans can also be hacked by humans.Bring it on! If that doesn't work then I really don't mind spending more time reading books, drawing, painting, gunzelling, walking the cat and dog, playing games on the C64 and all the other stuff I used to do.

[rolanaj]

gunzelling

Just curious what is gunzelling? My cat loves going for walks too, the dogs will be ecstatic if there is more time for walks especially with winter coming.I find all this stuff with DRM really confusing, I know that if it gets to the point where I buy a dvd and I can't play it on my computer there really isn't going to be any reason to buy movies anymore. I understand that they don't want me to make illegal copies of movies and give them away but why is it ok for them to tell me what I have to watch them on. I also copy music cd's to my computer, that is where I listen to tunes.The idea that it could be illegal to have linux on my computer is totally amazing to me, does this mean that I could only buy an empty hard drive with no software on it to install linux? Technology used to be fun.

[greengeek]

Gunzel is an Australian word for rail fan. Gunzelling is the word used for people like me who go out to take photos of trains or just watch them go past. I'll be doing a lot more of it if this DRM thing takes off.

[Dard]

If that doesn't work then I really don't mind spending more time reading books, drawing, painting, gunzelling, walking the cat and dog, playing games on the C64 and all the other stuff I used to do.

That's my thoughts too. Computers have been fun, and when the fun is no longer there, well what would be the point for a home user to continue on?If enough people do something else then the money lost to the computer industry could make many nervous.Might actually be good for ones health to get away from computers, and the money saved on high speed internet access could be spent on something more relaxing.

[ebrke]

The idea that it could be illegal to have linux on my computer is totally amazing to me, does this mean that I could only buy an empty hard drive with no software on it to install linux? Technology used to be fun.

What worries me is that linux itself will be against the law in the US because it won't have the specific proprietary DRM referred to in the proposed law. The Justice Dept. is also trying to get a law through that would allow them to prosecute "any ATTEMPTED copyright infringement". I wonder if linux would then become illegal because it could be used to infringe copyright.New proposed Law

[epp_b]

Oh, yeah, while were at it, let's outlaw photo copiers, scanners, printers, cameras and anything else that can duplicate a book :thumbsdown:You can't just ban something because it might be used for such a thing, that's just plain stupid.

Edited November 11, 2005 by epp_b

[trigggl]

Well, all I know is that I will be paying attention, I'm a registered voter and whoever votes for this DRM spyware nonsense will have a hard time getting re-elected.It might be a good time to put together another computer.

[Dard]

You can't just ban something because it might be used for such a thing, that's just plain stupid.

Welcome to george bushes world!Can you say "weapons of mass destruction"? Never underestimate the power of money and your elected representatives.

[Guest LilBambi]

Please, let's not get political here (us versus them or knocking the President etc.).Let's keep this where it belongs. This is a corporate nightmare perpetrated on the citizens of this country and they are also trying to force the hand of countries outside the US. They are duping or seducing all manner of government representatives here and abroad who have vested interests.This is about Fair Use. They want to take it away from us on all levels. They want perpetual copyright. They want. They want.Well, I say, are we gonna let them? There have to be (legal) ways we can keep what has been our right since forever. I am keeping my eye on places like EFF.org, Public Knowledge, etc. to see what I can do to help.In the meantime, I will not be party to any of their DRM/Copy Protected anything.

Edited November 11, 2005 by LilBambi

[epp_b]

Can you say "weapons of mass destruction"?

Are you talking about Sony's DRM or DRM in general? (hint: both answers are correct)

[Dard]

Looks like more DRM, but in another form, or everyone wants to own the internet.

Keep the Internet FreeBy Arch PuddingtonSaturday, November 12, 2005; Page A25Delegates from around the world will gather next week in Tunisia for what is known as the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). Few people are aware of WSIS's existence, its mission or the purpose of this conference. That is unfortunate, since the principal agenda item calls for a wholesale change in governance of the Internet that could lead to a significant setback for global freedom of information.Although many are under the impression that the Internet is unregulated, this is not entirely the case. There are a number of technical issues -- such as the allocation of the dot-com or dot-net designations or the country codes that are attached to e-mails -- that must be determined by a central entity. This job is currently handled by an American nonprofit: the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). With an international staff on three continents, ICANN has met its mandate in a way that all agree has been fair and nonpartisan.While ICANN functions on a charter from the Commerce Department, the U.S. government has followed a strict hands-off policy; ICANN's actions are transparent and decisions are made only after extensive consultation with Internet companies, governments, techies and freedom-of-expression organizations. ICANN has contributed to the unique nature of the Internet as a creative and innovative means of communication that links people and ideas across national boundaries -- for the most part outside the control of government.But demands are growing for the "internationalization" of Internet governance. To this end, a number of countries are pressing to remove oversight from ICANN and place it under the auspices of a new organization that would be part of the U.N. system. Advocates of this arrangement make no claims that the current system is flawed. Instead, they focus on the supposed "injustice" or "inappropriateness" of a system overseen by an American agency. And there is an ulterior motive behind the clamor for change.In a Nov. 5 op-ed column in The Post, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan wrote that a U.N. role in Internet governance would be benign and would concentrate on expanding the Internet into the developing world. But while Annan's intentions are no doubt well-meaning, the same cannot be said for the coalition of U.N member states making the loudest noise for change. Among them are regimes that have taken measures to control their citizens' access to the Internet and have championed global controls over Internet content. These include some of the world's most repressive states: Cuba, China, Iran and Saudi Arabia. Other governments have weighed in to support U.N. oversight, either out of anti-Americanism, a reflexive commitment to international governance or a belief that Internet content needs to be reined in.Although U.N. officials deny any intention to broaden ICANN's mandate, past U.N. experience suggests that a limited mission can gradually expand into unanticipated territory under the relentless pressure of determined member states. Some of the most shameful U.N. episodes -- particularly regarding freedom issues -- have occurred because the world's democracies were outwitted by a coalition of the most repressive regimes -- the very coalition that is taking shape over Internet control. Working with determination and discipline, this alliance of dictatorships has already left the U.N. Human Rights Commission a shambles, something that Annan himself has deplored.In this emerging contest, the position of the European Union is particularly disappointing. Initially aligned with the United States in support of Internet freedom, the E.U. recently went wobbly and proposed creation of a "forum" to govern the Internet, something different from ICANN though not under U.N. control -- this to the delight of Cuba and China.Compounding the problem is the choice of Tunisia, a country with a woeful record of press freedom violations, as the WSIS conference's host. On Freedom House's global index of press freedom, Tunisia ranks near the bottom, right along with Iran and Saudi Arabia -- 173rd of 193 states. It is particularly zealous in restricting Internet content and has mobilized security forces to block Web sites, monitor e-mail and conduct surveillance of Internet cafes.The United States delegation has pledged to stand firm in defense of ICANN while proposing a plan to allow more global discussion and debate on Internet issues. This is a good starting place; even better would be a decision by the European Union to align itself with the United States.It is no secret why Iran, China and Cuba are lobbying so desperately to replace ICANN: The Internet has proven a potent weapon against state repression. In an age of media concentration, it has contributed mightily to democratization of the means of communication. It nullifies totalitarian schemes to monopolize the airwaves; in the age of the Internet, the total control portrayed by George Orwell in "1984" is simply impossible in all but the most hermetically sealed countries.Given the stakes involved, it is incumbent on the world's democracies to stand firm against efforts to undermine this critical instrument of free ideas.

From this article.Gee how about standing firm against the DRM rubbish?Added quote coding to simplify telling who wrote what. Edited November 13, 2005 by teacher

[Marsden11]

I'm all for it!Would we have this DRM problem if folks didn't "share" pirated music and movies?

[Guest LilBambi]

There is a huge difference between piracy and fair use -- despite the RIAA/MPAA hype.

Edited November 13, 2005 by LilBambi

[mhbell]

Sure do! Thanks for asking.BambisMusings

Hello FranI hope you don't mind as I added your rss feed to my feed list..Mel

[ebrke]

Would we have this DRM problem if folks didn't "share" pirated music and movies?

While Bambi is right that this comes down to getting our Fair Use rights taken away, I'm afraid that "sharing" is what really freaked out the music/movie industry execs. To counteract that, and to try to force into place the new, lucrative business model they had dreamed up (literally pay to play--and pay each and every time you play), DRM really came into its own. In the same vein, have you read that NBC and CBS have "licensed" DirectTV and Comcast to timeshift certain popular TV shows via On Demand starting after the first airing until the next show airs the following week--for a cost, of course. It's small (99 cents I think), but it will encourage people to pay for something they could get previously at no cost. And I'm afraid people will do it because it is convenient, and in a few years, only some fanatics like us will remember that it didn't always work this way.Edit: It occurred to me that this is getting off-topic and far away from linux and DRM. I apologize for the rant. Edited November 13, 2005 by ebrke

[Guest LilBambi]

Hello FranI hope you don't mind as I added your rss feed to my feed list..Mel

It is my pleasure to have you checking on my RSS feed Mel.

[Guest LilBambi]

My Hubby has been talking about rentware for many years. This has been the model that has been dreamed of by corporations since forever.But think about it? How much rentware can you afford?There was a time when analog TV was paid for by benign advertisers (meaning nothing could hurt your TV), now you pay for those same free channels through cable/satellite services on a subscription service.The channels/networks now get paid not only by advertisers, but by services that are allowed to air the channels, who in turn get paid by subscribers to view them.Used to be you could buy albums and actually own them and have fair use of them.Used to be you could buy software and actually put it on whatever computers you owned because you bought the software, not the license for one computer.Now corporations are drafting their own legislation -- that they have duped our own elected officials into presenting and attempting to pass and have already been passed in congress --which works against the very people that are their customers and potential customers and constituents.Where does it stop? How much burden is the consumer expected to bear? Pretty soon they will kill the golden goose and then where will they be?A government can not put laws in place that will turn law abiding citizens into criminals, or they will have no law abiding citizens left. Once citizens have been made to cross the line because the laws are unjust, how much longer before as a society loses its moral compass entirely and starts saying what's the difference when other crimes are presented to them. If a government passes unjust laws, the citizens will rebel and all will rue the day.Just my two cents.

Edited November 13, 2005 by LilBambi

[greengeek]

I'm all for it!Would we have this DRM problem if folks didn't "share" pirated music and movies?

If it can be done people are going to do it, human nature I think.