big brother is watching you So, you thought 1984 was bad! You ain't seen nothin' yet

[Guest LilBambi]

I don't know about you, but I do not want my TV or video/DVD/Bluray player watching me while I watch whatever content I want to watch. I would not be able to relax to watch a movie under those conditions.

 

They have no right to 'monitor' your viewing of anything.

 

OK, so what am I talking about?

 

CONTENT DISTRIBUTION REGULATION BY VIEWING USER - USPTO

 

United States Patent Application 20120278904

Kind Code A1

Perez; Kathryn Stone ; et al.

November 1, 2012

-

Inventors: Perez; Kathryn Stone; (Kirkland, WA) ; Kipman; Alex Aben-Athar; (Redmond, WA) ; Fuller; Andrew John; (Redmond, WA)

Assignee: MICROSOFT CORPORATION. Redmond WA

Serial No.: 094444

Series Code: 13

Filed: April 26, 2011

 

CONTENT DISTRIBUTION REGULATION BY VIEWING USER

 

Abstract

A content presentation system and method allowing content providers to regulate the presentation of content on a per-user-view basis. Content is distributed an associated license option on the number of individual consumers or viewers allowed to consume the content. Consumers are presented with a content selection and a choice of licenses allowing consumption of the content. The users consuming the content on a display device are monitored so that if the number of user-views licensed is exceeded, remedial action may be taken.

 

That's just the abstract! Check out the details; see in particular #1, #8, #15.

 

This is so they can have content that can be 'licensed' but by the number of viewers in a room to see it. The only way they can prove that no one slips in to see it is to continuously monitor the room for additions during the viewing.

 

This is totally nuts! They have no right to subject anyone to that kind of licensing. It is bad enough already.

 

What a bunch of lunatics at Microsoft and the MPAA and other copyright holders if they think people will put up with this.

 

But then again, look what many people will allow the TSA to do...nevermind...

 

I am thoroughly disgusted that Microsoft would be a part of this at all. Shame on you Microsoft.

 

And what's next? Now that they are allowed to 'monitor' you like Big Brother, what's next? Doesn't matter what you are watching, they can monitor you in your own home? Or at a bar, or restaurant?

 

What about when you are watching at home; or have your TV/monitor on during the day or while you are cleaning, walking around your home not entirely clothed, or doing whatever you might want to do in your own home? Monitored just because the TV/Monitor is on?

 

This is insane IMHO. No I am not kidding. This is insane thinking that Microsoft and the MPAA or whatever copyright holders are in on this.

Edited November 11, 2012 by LilBambi

[securitybreach]

[V.T. Eric Layton]

Why not?

 

They monitor you with cameras all over the place. They monitor your phone conversations. They monitor your Internet usage. They track you with your cell phone. They know all your medical history. They know all your spending and credit history. They even have access to your friggin' library card record, so they know that The Anarchist Cookbook has been checked out by you 37 times in the past 14 years. C'mon... what's a little more surveillance gonna' hurt?

 

[securitybreach]

So who is watching the Watchers?

[V.T. Eric Layton]

Aliens.

[rolanaj]

[ross549]

Maybe this isn't what it seems.

 

If Microsoft gets this patent granted, then only Microsoft can do this particular style of watcher monitoring. Maybe they don't want anyone else doing it, so they patent the method and prevent anyone from doing it, because maybe, just maybe, they don't want anyone doing it.

 

Adam

[V.T. Eric Layton]

Actually, Josh, I was being facetious above when I said aliens. It's much worse than that. The people who watch the watchers are your very own trusted, highly competent, elected and appointed government officials.

[crp]

It is not just the government. Want to see who is tracking you while browsing? check out Ghostery

[V.T. Eric Layton]

Many trying to track me; very few succeeding:

 

Do Not Track --> http://donottrackplus.com/howitworks.php

 

TOR --> https://www.torproject.org/

 

NoScript --> http://noscript.net/

 

Better Privacy --> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/betterprivacy/

 

[amenditman]

I only want "them" to track me when I say they can.

"They" can be trusted to know the difference, right?

[crp]

[...] NoScript --> http://noscript.net/

[...]

I have noScript, it is a mandatory first thing i make sure the extension still works addon that i've used since pre version 1.

One reason i was surprised by what Ghostery showed me.

 

and no, "they" can not really be trusted when the "they" are those trying to use cookies and trackers to monetize your visits without asking.

[lewmur]

Maybe this isn't what it seems.

 

If Microsoft gets this patent granted, then only Microsoft can do this particular style of watcher monitoring. Maybe they don't want anyone else doing it, so they patent the method and prevent anyone from doing it, because maybe, just maybe, they don't want anyone doing it.

 

Adam

Ahhh, the ever vigilant MS defender. Is there ANYTHING Redmond could do that you wouldn't look for a reason to excuse?

[Guest LilBambi]

Adam often plays devil's advocate. He is not a Microsoft or Apple apologist. Please, keep the conversation on topic and not use attacks against fellow Highlanders.

[V.T. Eric Layton]

Adam's Apple?

[crp]

Adam often plays devil's advocate. He is not a Microsoft or Apple apologist. Please, keep the conversion on topic and not use attacks against fellow Highlanders.

and if Win8-RT is going to be a closed ecosystem, Adam's hypothesis is not unreasonable for that environment.

[Guest LilBambi]

There is that crp.

[ross549]

The patent that LilBambi started the topic really points to the Xbox Kinect, since it is already performing the requisite functionality (identifying participants) needed to regulate the playback by number of viewers. There's no reason this would have to be limited to the Kinect, however. Do I think regulating playback based on the number of watchers is acceptable? Absolutely not.

 

I was merely pointing out that the patent system could be used in this case to prevent anyone else from using a similar technology, so such an idea would not make it to the mainstream. In this hypothetical situation, Microsoft would be acting in the better interest of its users.

 

If you disagree with my stance, please discuss it, and not me as a person. I love the idea of open software (I run almost all OSS software on my Mac), dislike many things in Windows (only recently forced to upgrade to Windows 7 at work and actually don't hate it), and own a few Apple devices. Each device and software has its place.

 

I simply don't think Microsoft is evil, and that belief may place me in the minority here at Scot's. I simply think the company is in the business of making money (logically), and does what it thinks is best for its long term goals (long term profitability and market relevance). I think Microsoft is sometimes too mig and some divisions don't talk to the others or simply make poor decisions. Other times, they do something good.

 

If that makes me a Microsoft apologist, then so be it.

 

Adam

[securitybreach]

I also do not think Microsoft is evil per se but I do not agree with some of their ethics as far as patching bugs and such. I understand that Microsoft makes most of their money from per-seat licensing fees from corporations therefore most of their money does not come from consumers anyway. Most of my dislike comes from the issue of proprietary versus open source licensing. I believe all information (code)should be readily available to anyone that wants to tinker. I guess I am just a software hippy

 

Now Apple on the other hand........

[V.T. Eric Layton]

I only like apple when mom peels and wedges it for me.