Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 25
  1. #11
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Actually, they are neither client or regulation driven. Money is the drive behind all things for the entertainment industry right now. They are willing to pay lots of their money to get around any legal and ethical boundaries - and with DRM they are doing that.

    How do you thing the DMCA came into legislature in the first place? The big media companies paid Orin Hatch (R) UT to introduce the legislature.

    Ever wonder why the RIAA gets so much and the artists get so little, and then the RIAA goes around and bitches how the music pirates are stealing their property? Money. Cash. Moolah. $$$$$$$$$.

    And it's not even their IP.

    Crazy. But that's how the music industry works.

    The MPAA is getting just as bad lately.

    Microsoft, being as money hungry as they are, along with other companies see this as a golden oppritunity. The cure-all for the dot com bust of the early 00's. They are jumping on this DRM bandwagon that the RIAA has jumped on and providing the technology for a share of the wealth that the RIAA makes off of their practice (inflating the price of CDs and keeping that inflated cost difference to themselves). Ever wonder why the price of Windows XP was sooo much higher than Windows 95/98/ME? Microsoft wanted an extra buck from the user. In MS's case, though, the money was paid all to the "artists" of the software. But it's the same concept. With DRM, all these companies just want to make a quick buck at the expense of your rights, using the excuse that it's to protect their rights - when the whole DMCA violates everything copyright stands for in the first place (freedom of expression, etc..)

    I am willing to bet that Microsoft makes money from the RIAA through some sort of royalty system for the DRM technologies they have invented.


    Thats one of the many reasons why Windows is going to become a subscription based O/S soon - so they can collect money from you annualy. Microsoft implemented DRM, and subsequently, realized that they can control their users and better monitor them - and in the long run, make Vi a annual cost much like the X-Box live is right now. And don't expect that cost to be cheep, either. Probably like $199 / yr to use their Vi software.

    "You go in business to make money, not to help the consumer." -Professor Risley, DeVry University, Kansas City, MO


  2. #12
    Senior Member Maestr0's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    You mean well, but your knowledge is lacking.

    \"If computers are to become smart enough to design their own successors, initiating a process that will lead to God-like omniscience after a number of ever swifter passages from one generation of computers to the next, someone is going to have to write the software that gets the process going, and humans have given absolutely no evidence of being able to write such software.\" -Jaron Lanier

  3. #13
    Join Date
    May 2003
    f00dl3... no offense here, but you are very poorly educated on this subject. I think keeping user rights in mind is very important, but to do so through the voice paranoid hysteria is more damaging then helpful. It makes the arguments easier to just dismiss.

    Accountable for having legal access to your personal information since you handed the license for that information to them
    Here you go with double talk again... they have access... you handed to them? Well yeah, I suppose if you decide to hand over your personal information to someone, they will have access to it. (Imagine that!)
    This is no different than an application lacking DRM... excepting of course that you have better assurance of who the information you handed over is going to.

    If the copyright holder makes it clear in the EULA that he implemented the DRM to prevent removal, than the copyright holder holds the right to make the EULA state whatever the hell he wants it to. Any attempt to violate this EULA can be made clear that it is illegal in the EULA.
    Actually, a EULA cannot interfere with normal use of the system, any EULA which does is considered non-enforceable. The removal of packages is considered "normal use." The EULA can state that you need to give over your first born... not only does it not mean that you have to in fact give over your first born, but any attempts at enforcing this will be meet with a good old fashioned class action lawsuit.

    You dont have to agree to the license when you install software.
    Yeah, which also makes it non-enforceable.

    Again, many spyware programs are installed without users knowing it.
    Which will not be the case within the TCPA.

    Ever fired up a packet sniffer while listening to a MP3 downloaded from a music service such as Napster?
    Yeah... if the MP3 is protected by a DRM, it will attempt to acquire the license. Does this surprise you, no one makes any secret of this process.

    It does not ask you if it is ok, the only way it will ask you is if you set your firewall up to block that trojan horse called Windows Media Player.
    If you configure WMP to not prompt you... mine always asks before doing fetching any licenses.

    How do you think the RIAA gets the information of how many songs users download off of illegal services? Bypassing security and snitching in on ISPs.
    *sigh* Do you really believe this?

    However, I, as an end user do want to be able to backup (any damn time I want to) my software, music, (and yes, even girly pics) on my computer without having to worry about breaking any DRM in the process.
    Backup your licenses... it's not complicated.

    since DRM is a back door already (by definition).
    Um... not at all, DRM DOES NOT GRANT ANY ADDITIONAL PRIVILEGES!! Sheesh, DRM enabled tools are treated no differently by the system security policy.

    Check your links before you post them
    I have, it works fine. It is a link to the TPA extensions for the Linux kernel.

    Actually, it will be less functional. The software that does not comply with DRM will be subject to constant bombardment from the big companies, and it will have problems interfacing with software that does run on the trusted side. For an example, I don't think Open Office will work good on Windows Vi.
    Based on what? There is no reason why non-DRM software would have issues interfacing with DRM software, though a hierarchical relationship would exist. Open Office will work just fine on Windows Vista, but it will only function in the untrusted level... until it supports the appropriate DRM.

    Any application that uses the untrusted side of the opperating system will have less access to the CPU and hardware resources.
    This is completely false.

    With different levels of trust comes more possibility for incompatibility and instability. I would like to see how many times Vi will crash if it detects Linux (if it even lets Linux be installed on a system with Vi).
    Um... I give up.

    Get your facts straight, and quite buying into corporate burocracy.
    Get your facts straight... Linux already has TPA support, and open source, non-DRM applications will run just fine on Windows Vista. (in the untrusted level)

    The legit. users actually loose their ability to backup, save, and sometimes even view their own product ala FAIR USE.
    Seriously, how uneducated of a user are you? It seems that you are angry with DRM because you have no end of problems with it. I for one have never had any DRM issues and neither has my 80 year old grandmother who is constantly downloading operas and Disney movies involving cats (there are more than you might think). I think the DRM issues you describe are more of a you problem than an architecture problem.



  4. #14
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Originally posted here by Maestr0
    You mean well, but your knowledge is lacking.

    Sometimes, theory is more important than knowledge. In this field, theoretical uses of DRM can outweight actual uses of DRM.

    When you do security analysis, you have to look at all sides of the picture. College has helped me do this. But in SA, you have to look at not only what the companies intent to do with this is (which is already startling as it is), but also what a hacker would potentailly attempt to do if they got their hands on the technology and exploited it to their own interests.

    Sure, believe what you want. If you look back at this thread 5 years from know and think "maby I should have listened to him", than you may acutally appreciate this more.

    This is the same response I got to my threads I started posting in 2002 about Why invading Iraq had no point to it and how dumb the idea that Iraq had WMDs was.

  5. #15
    Now, RFC Compliant! Noia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    With all the subtlety of an artillery barrage / Follow blindly, for the true path is sketchy at best. .:Bring OS X to x86!:.
    Og ingen kan minnast dei linne drag i dronningas andlet den fagre dag Då landet her kvilte i heilag fred og alle hadde kjærleik å elske med.

  6. #16
    AO Curmudgeon rcgreen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    A lot has been said about DRM, and it occasionally appears in the mainstream news. But there is one cold hard fact about DRM, which is typically underemphasised (or not emphasised at all) by the mainstream media. Which is that DRM will only work if some central organisation controls:

    * all the computers in the world
    * all the computer peripherals in the world
    * all the connections between all the computers in the world

    About the only time this point of view appears in the media is when Richard M Stallman gets an article published in a newspaper (e.g. Who controls your computer?). There is also Cory Doctorow

    There are other well-known "copyfighters", such as Lawrence Lessig, and members of the EFF, but most of them seem to be more interested in advocating "balance" between copyright and computer freedom.

    Unfortunately, there is no balance. Either DRM fails completely, or we live in some sort of technical dictatorship.

    The reason I agree with this view, is because otherwise, DRM will remain
    a software system only, and will be cracked. Then people will go on copying
    and sharing files as they always have. Since the DRM advocates have
    very little chance of attaining control over the hardware market,
    "rogue" hardware makers will continue to manufacture devices that will
    be able to access DRM protected files, and thanks to the software
    cracks that will invariably be available, you will be able to access their
    precious content without honoring the restrictions. That's politics.
    That's technology. Deal with it.
    I came in to the world with nothing. I still have most of it.

  7. #17

  8. #18
    Join Date
    May 2003
    f00dl3... you are making yourself less trustworthy all the time...

    Here's the TCPA FAQ
    No. That is not the TCPA FAQ. It is a TCPA FAQ. Big difference.



  9. #19
    Regal Making Handler
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    How do you think the RIAA gets the information of how many songs users download off of illegal services? Bypassing security and snitching in on ISPs.
    There is nothing underhand in the way the music/movie industries moniter and catch file sharers. It is such a simple system. Download and install <insert what ever P2P client> fire it up. Do a search for any of your works, brows shared folder, find your works, download from sharer, verify files, log IP and time.

    Thats all it takes.
    What happens if a big asteroid hits the Earth? Judging from realistic simulations involving a sledge hammer and a common laboratory frog, we can assume it will be pretty bad. - Dave Barry

  10. #20
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    First, here's that article that the FSF's new GNU public license is challenging DRM - and why I believe that the companies will force the FSF to go bankrupt. (Even though you argue that you found evidence that linux already supports TC).



    Originally posted here by catch
    f00dl3... you are making yourself less trustworthy all the time...

    No. That is not the TCPA FAQ. It is a TCPA FAQ. Big difference.


    Oddly enough, there are more sites that voice the same information (or slight variences) that I am voicing about TCPA and DRM than there are that support the technology (parting from the actual companies that are involved in this.... thing)

    One interesting piece of info: Most of the people who support TC are businesses that have a invested interest in it. Most that oppose it are end users.

    The end users are the ones who will become the "victim" of the TCPA


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

We have made updates to our Privacy Policy to reflect the implementation of the General Data Protection Regulation.