erikistired
Diamond Member
- Sep 27, 2000
- 9,739
- 0
- 0
if people would stop stealing stuff i think this would be less of an issue. oh wait, that makes way too much sense!
You too can be a content provider, and despite what people say you can be more consumer friendly.
HardWarrior
Diamond Member
- Jan 26, 2004
- 4,400
- 23
- 81
The sad\real fact is that consumers have no rights, at least not the sort of rights our system understands. Implying that we do possess an inherent "right" to anything under capitalist sway just confuses the issue beyond all reason. The best we can do is exercise the TRUE power of the purse. If Vista doesn't meet your requirements, don't buy it. This action will work far better against people like Gates than whining about what MS HAS to do because we SAY so.
mechBgon
Super Moderator<br>Elite Member
- Oct 31, 1999
- 30,699
- 1
- 0
Do you own a vehicle that uses gasoline or diesel fuel, despite the obligations, restrictions, costs, drawbacks and "serfdoms" to oil/auto/insurance industries (and the gubmint) that come with it? I bet you doOriginally posted by: VirtualLarry
Originally posted by: corkyg
Excellent response, mechBgon! Basically, we are users, not owners. And in some sense, we don't have owner rights - we have user privileges (shoved rectally a nickel a ta time.)
It's technological feudalism - you're just another serf working the master's land, with no real ownership rights at all.
Do you have a driver's license? Does it mean that you own the road and can do WTH you feel like out there?Ah so, grasshoppah...
BTW a warning to all AT Forum users: there will be a general shortage of available electrons on and near the Earth, while VirtualLarry composes a long-winded rantply.
Shamrock
Golden Member
- Oct 11, 1999
- 1,441
- 567
- 136
But I CAN change the wheels, put new fenders on, put a new interior, etc on MY car. That driver's "license" you speak of, that isnt so you can drive your CAR, it is a license to drive ON YOUR STATES' highways! To put it in analogy, it's a license to get on the internet. You can modify your car Any way you want to, and the manufacturer won't say a word, except..."you voided your warranty". If I want to, I can even take off my speedometer and DELETE the MPH guage, and leave the kph guage on it...as long as I can calculate/convert KPH to MPH. The restrictions, obligations, costs, and drawbacks, are 99% for safety/environmental reasons.
That car is MINE, If I want, I can take a sledge hammer to it, and beat the devil out of it, The manufacturer, and/or the state won't say a word about it, as long as it meets environmental and safety regulations. If I want to change how it handles (a kernel?), I can! If I want to add a turbo for more mpower, I CAN! as long as it meets the safety/environ standards.
Can you do that to Windows? NO!
That car is MINE, If I want, I can take a sledge hammer to it, and beat the devil out of it, The manufacturer, and/or the state won't say a word about it, as long as it meets environmental and safety regulations. If I want to change how it handles (a kernel?), I can! If I want to add a turbo for more mpower, I CAN! as long as it meets the safety/environ standards.
Can you do that to Windows? NO!
You can do that just fine with the hardware you own. You don't own the software, only have permission to use it with a bunch of rules.
Do you really think content would be distributed Blu-Ray or HD DVD -only if Microsoft did not support it?
VirtualLarry
No Lifer
- Aug 25, 2001
- 56,571
- 10,206
- 126
If that's true, then every retail store that sells software is complicit in widespread fraud.
Not every software company is as greedy as MS - Borland used to license their software "like a book"... you OWN your copy of it, and can do what you wish with said copy, so long as you don't violate copyright law. (You can't make and distribute duplicates, nor can you claim the work as your own, but you have the right to re-sell your genuine and legitimately paid-for copy of the work.)
As far as Hdcp goes...
From a article named "Video crypto standard cracked?" from 2001.
http://www.securityfocus.com/news/236
(hint: this is a very big deal)
Freedom of speech?
Not in the US if it means that it inadvertantly contribute to lowering a Movie Studio's bottom line. It's not 'In God We Trust' anymore, it's "For $$$ We Serve'.
How so? You buy a little piece of plastic and maybe a small book.
They have a better licese than a lot of the other software out there. So what?
More and more, I'm coming to the realization that if people actually understood even a fraction of what copyright entails (or, perhaps, what content holders assert), they would largely reject it.
Copyright is a very good thing. Absolutely required. It would suck without it.
DRM isn't about protecting copyright, although that's what the excuse is. What DRM is about is taking a obsolete distribution model that was hugely profitable and translating it to work on the web.
The RIAA was originally formed to create intropolity standards between machines. They set out standards for recording and playback equipment. The reason you can take records and play them on any record player is due to them. They standardized the speed, the material, the size of the hole in the middle. That sort of thing.
The recording studios of the world came into being in order to enable artists to record and distribute their work.
During the 20th century setting up a recording studio to make decent work costs literally millions and millions of dollars in today's money. The people that worked there had to be highly technical, professional, and highly educated. You had custom buildings, custom eletronic equipment and such. All of this was very expensive.
Then you had huge costs of advertisement. You had to setup radio stations, had to distribute flyers. Had to setup concerts and all sorts of stuff.
Then you had huge costs of distribution. You had to help out store fronts. Had to pay for physical distribution. The trucks, the truckers. The contracts and had to had a very good business and negotiating sense.
All in all to have a successfull recording studio was enormously expensive.
But now we have the Internet. End users already pay for their distribution costs and all you need is a fat pipe. For 10-20k you can setup a recording studio in your basement using high quality and inexpensive modern electronics and personal computers that will rival the best studios 'The Beatles' ever had access to in the peak of their popularity.
So now we have a whole industry of middlemen that is completely obsolete and they have lots and lots and lots of money and are getting more and more desperate. They are so f-ing rich because costs dropped considurably during the 80's and the 90's, but their prices didn't.
These people are sitting as a buffer between the Artists and the Consumers. They want it to stay that way.
For motion pictures this is less true, but they are facing the same threat. They have a good 'IP' thing going though to protect their market.
DRM is designed as a way to keep exclusivity over distribution channels. They are working with software makers like Microsoft and hardware makers like Intel and friends to give them extra control and access to customers in a way that customers do not have.
It's this exclusivity that DRM is designed to provide. The protection of the distribution channels (the internet. Remember 'Net Nuetrality'?) and protection of the delivery mechanism (your computer) is what DRM is for... NOT for protecting copyrights.
This way they create a environment were Artists still will have to pay them to have rights to distribute their music over this new DRM-encrusted delivery mechanism, and consumers will have to pay to access it at their end also.
Protecting and laws protecting copyrights are a GOOD THING. They are taken to a bit of a stupid extreme though in the past century or so.. Lasting a hundred years or more, it should be more like 20 or 15 years, which is closer to what the founding fathers envisioned when they wrote the copyright laws in the first place.
I'm not saying that I don't think that we should have copyright (though on some days... :|), and I absolutely agree that 20 years (one generation) is an absolutely perfect length of time for copyright. I also know that DRM is about power and preservation of the status quo, that DRM is an attempt to make bits of information act like objects (which they aren't at all).
All I'm saying is that the Berne Convention needs to die a quick death---life plus 50^W70^W90 my ass.
Just a thought, but.. all this DRM stuff and the alliances and the things done without the public really being informed.. isn't this to protect the most lucrative areas of business, and not the blue collar crowd? Sense when does "The Terminator" or the like need protection?
We are just the little guys. At least most of us.
It is time to have the United States return to a Representative Government it is supposed to function as in a Republic or Democracy.
Capitalism without a Government looking out for the little guy is no better than other forms of Government..
Maybe we are not all Republicans, or Democrats, but maybe as littel guys we can be Republicrats or Democlicans and work together to end this Tyranny called DCMA and DRM and.. aided and abetted by the likes of Microsoft, Sony and now with laws on their side.. almost all companies out of fear of reprisal are now on board.
The Stain
We are just the little guys. At least most of us.
It is time to have the United States return to a Representative Government it is supposed to function as in a Republic or Democracy.
Capitalism without a Government looking out for the little guy is no better than other forms of Government..
Maybe we are not all Republicans, or Democrats, but maybe as littel guys we can be Republicrats or Democlicans and work together to end this Tyranny called DCMA and DRM and.. aided and abetted by the likes of Microsoft, Sony and now with laws on their side.. almost all companies out of fear of reprisal are now on board.
The Stain
mechBgon
Super Moderator<br>Elite Member
- Oct 31, 1999
- 30,699
- 1
- 0
Hey, now no badmouthing the leopards! Lions, sure.
Lions, sure.I disagree. Do the math... if you buy Vista Ultimate at retail for $500, and use it for ten years, that's about $4 per month. Considering that Microsoft commits to supporting Windows for ten years on any hardware/software setup you could dream up, I think they can justify the price. I have no problem paying for it every 5-10 years, I'd much sooner buy Windows than buy a new car.
This coming from a guy who confuses Firewire with firewalls. If you can substantiate this claim, then explain in detail. Otherwise, seriously, would you try not to just post the first glib-sounding thing that comes into your head? It's painful to watch.
How dramatic. Now you're turning troll again. I could see people ranting about traffic lights in the same way, OMG I must sit and wait for a lightbulb to turn off?!?! but they make our transportation system feasible, and there are upsides that make it worthwhile.
He does seem to be lacking a few critical thinking skills too.
Stoplights last seconds; copyrights last lifetimes.
Ya.. basicly.
For instance the artists that work on computer animation used in movies aren't the ones getting rich from their work. They work for a salary or hourly wage and they loose ownership of what they work on. They sign away their copyrights to the execuatives whose job is to make the stock holders rich.
Now the it's very very rare that you make money as a artist.. It's a bit like making money being a baseball player or backetball player. So most people are very happy to work for people like Pixar or Disney or whatnot. But I think it's still a little bit f-ed up.
Now between movies and television and the music recording industry.. the music recording industry are probably the worst. It's realy bad and they regularly take advantage of ignorant but talented young artists.
The artists in the music industry are under work-for-hire contracts. Usually when they sign music contracts they are not aware of this... This means that any music they make while working in the studio (which they pay for the time to use the corporation's studios out of their contracts) using the studio's equipment (which they rent from the studio) with help from studio technitions (which they pay for out of their contract)... That when they do this they surrendor their copyrights to the corporations. This means that the artists aren't even allowed to use their own recordings anymore. Most bands that get signed don't usually know all of this...
They do even worst stuff like purposely sign bands to destroy them. If they see a band that is talented enough that they COULD make money off of them, they will sign them specificly so that a competitor can't sign them. Then they don't ever release a record for them and keep them under contract forever. After a while the band will then just desolve without ever releasing anything. This happens to the majority of bands that get signed.. I think.
Even if a band is wildly successfull and make multi-millions of dollars in terms of record sales they usually only realy make a hundred hundred thousand dollars out of that... If they are very luckly. This money they then have to pay taxes on and divide up between themselves. The contract will say they get such and such percentage and get such and such million dollars.. but it's all nickled and dimed out of them. Usually the guys you see dancing around on MTV or such would of made more money being managers at McDonalds. It's pretty rare that music artists make enough money from record sales to retire from.
Usually only bands that have lasted long enough to get out of their original contracts and get new ones with the help of lawyers and such actually make good money from record sales. (Like Metallica for instance)
The average signed band literally make more money from T-shirt and ticket sales at concerts. So theoreticly everybody in the world could pirate all music all the time and as long as they go and see the bands at concert then the artists wouldn't suffer one bit.
Of course I am not advocating piracy. The folks that belong to the RIAA still provide valuable services such as expertese to get good recordings, the studios are top-notch, distribution, contracts with radio stations, and you need promotion stuff as a artist. Things like that. These are still valuable services and they should be compinsated for it.
What we need is balance. Balance between corporations and public interest. People NEED to make money. Being rich is a GOOD thing. It drives a lot of very high quality stuff that helps entertain people all over the planet and provides many people a good living wage.
Some links that I've found interesting..
Courtney Love does the math:
http://www.jdray.com/Daviews/courtney.html
Some interesting stuff:
http://www.downhillbattle.org/interviews/
How royalties work:
http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/music-royalties6.htm
Illegal Art:
http://www.illegal-art.org/
This is art that is currently illegal according to United States laws. (well with a second look it's mostly just controversal stuff, lots of it would get you busted if you tried to publish it though) It is the modern equivelent to 'banned books'.
My personal favorites are the 'Gray Album' by DJ Dangermouse, which involved a widespread effort to delete/destroy every copy. The other one was the 'Little Mermaid' protest video by a Disney artist done to the music 'Gimmie Gimmie Gimmie' by Black Flag and one of the songs from the movie. Great Stuff.
http://www.downhillbattle.org/
Lots of links to good stuff.. Although their sticker thing is irritating and childish.
We need balance between profitability and the public good. We need to promote creativity and reward good artists.. but when the government and big business conspires together to maximize profits is when we run into problems.
For instance the artists that work on computer animation used in movies aren't the ones getting rich from their work. They work for a salary or hourly wage and they loose ownership of what they work on. They sign away their copyrights to the execuatives whose job is to make the stock holders rich.
Now the it's very very rare that you make money as a artist.. It's a bit like making money being a baseball player or backetball player. So most people are very happy to work for people like Pixar or Disney or whatnot. But I think it's still a little bit f-ed up.
Now between movies and television and the music recording industry.. the music recording industry are probably the worst. It's realy bad and they regularly take advantage of ignorant but talented young artists.
The artists in the music industry are under work-for-hire contracts. Usually when they sign music contracts they are not aware of this... This means that any music they make while working in the studio (which they pay for the time to use the corporation's studios out of their contracts) using the studio's equipment (which they rent from the studio) with help from studio technitions (which they pay for out of their contract)... That when they do this they surrendor their copyrights to the corporations. This means that the artists aren't even allowed to use their own recordings anymore. Most bands that get signed don't usually know all of this...
They do even worst stuff like purposely sign bands to destroy them. If they see a band that is talented enough that they COULD make money off of them, they will sign them specificly so that a competitor can't sign them. Then they don't ever release a record for them and keep them under contract forever. After a while the band will then just desolve without ever releasing anything. This happens to the majority of bands that get signed.. I think.
Even if a band is wildly successfull and make multi-millions of dollars in terms of record sales they usually only realy make a hundred hundred thousand dollars out of that... If they are very luckly. This money they then have to pay taxes on and divide up between themselves. The contract will say they get such and such percentage and get such and such million dollars.. but it's all nickled and dimed out of them. Usually the guys you see dancing around on MTV or such would of made more money being managers at McDonalds. It's pretty rare that music artists make enough money from record sales to retire from.
Usually only bands that have lasted long enough to get out of their original contracts and get new ones with the help of lawyers and such actually make good money from record sales. (Like Metallica for instance)
The average signed band literally make more money from T-shirt and ticket sales at concerts. So theoreticly everybody in the world could pirate all music all the time and as long as they go and see the bands at concert then the artists wouldn't suffer one bit.
Of course I am not advocating piracy. The folks that belong to the RIAA still provide valuable services such as expertese to get good recordings, the studios are top-notch, distribution, contracts with radio stations, and you need promotion stuff as a artist. Things like that. These are still valuable services and they should be compinsated for it.
What we need is balance. Balance between corporations and public interest. People NEED to make money. Being rich is a GOOD thing. It drives a lot of very high quality stuff that helps entertain people all over the planet and provides many people a good living wage.
Some links that I've found interesting..
Courtney Love does the math:
http://www.jdray.com/Daviews/courtney.html
Some interesting stuff:
http://www.downhillbattle.org/interviews/
How royalties work:
http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/music-royalties6.htm
Illegal Art:
http://www.illegal-art.org/
This is art that is currently illegal according to United States laws. (well with a second look it's mostly just controversal stuff, lots of it would get you busted if you tried to publish it though) It is the modern equivelent to 'banned books'.
My personal favorites are the 'Gray Album' by DJ Dangermouse, which involved a widespread effort to delete/destroy every copy. The other one was the 'Little Mermaid' protest video by a Disney artist done to the music 'Gimmie Gimmie Gimmie' by Black Flag and one of the songs from the movie. Great Stuff.
http://www.downhillbattle.org/
Lots of links to good stuff.. Although their sticker thing is irritating and childish.
We need balance between profitability and the public good. We need to promote creativity and reward good artists.. but when the government and big business conspires together to maximize profits is when we run into problems.
Trusted Platform Modules have very good technical merits. If used properly then they make your system more secure and easier to manage and protect. Any system which has the extensions to support more transparent virtualization (VT for Intel, Pacificia for AMD) basicly need TPM to help compinsate for certain dangers that bring.
And if you (as in other people) think that by going to Linux you can escape from TPM, think again. The Linux kernel has supported a veriaty of TPM devices for a while now. (since 2.6.12)
http://www.prosec.rub.de/tpm/
They are a double edged sword. It depends who is in control. If the end user is, then it's great. But if other people are then it's not.
mechBgon
Super Moderator<br>Elite Member
- Oct 31, 1999
- 30,699
- 1
- 0
Stoplights last for seconds. But the obligation to stop and wait at stoplights lasts for a lifetime. And I thought you just said copyrights only last 20 years, if we want to be accurate here
The benefit of our transportation system makes the obligations worthwhile to nearly everyone. The ability to drive from Washington to California in one day, in air-conditioned comfort, listening to your favorite tunes, going through drive-throughs for a snack, using a virtually flawless, carefully-engineered road...? Whoa. :Q To our forefathers, this would sound like owning a personal spacecraft would sound today to us. The discipline of "the system" has endowed you with incredible freedoms and opportunities.
It appears to me that the "traffic lights" of rights management are paving the way for download-on-demand movies and other benefits that people will be willing to endure a certain amount of discipline to obtain in the future.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter