PDA

View Full Version : Hollywood admits DRM is not about privacy but profit.



AlexC_
January 16th, 2007, 05:43 PM
Just saw this on Slashdot.

DRM - It's not really about privacy (http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/07/01/16/0244242.shtml)


Hollywood privately admits that DRM is not really about piracy. From the article: 'In a nutshell: DRM's sole purpose is to maximize revenues by minimizing your rights so that they can sell them back to you... Like all lies, there comes a point when the gig is up; the ruse is busted.

](*,)

darkhatter
January 16th, 2007, 05:45 PM
*opens up bt* \\insert evil laugh here// :-D

ffi
January 16th, 2007, 05:55 PM
Just saw this on Slashdot.

DRM - It's not really about privacy (http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/07/01/16/0244242.shtml)



](*,)

There's nothing wrong with making a big profit :D and these companies are not forcing you to buy DRM, you buy it because you want have it. No rights are taken away...

doobit
January 16th, 2007, 06:03 PM
There's nothing wrong with making a big profit :D and these companies are not forcing you to buy DRM, you buy it because you want have it. No rights are taken away...

Actually, they are hiding behind the DRM (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=thW&q=DRM+law+in+USA&btnG=Search) laws that many countries are trying to institute to help monopolize the entertainment industries in those countries.

ffi
January 16th, 2007, 06:13 PM
How are DRM blocking newcomers to the market, if DRM truely is very impopular compitors without DRM would have a significant advantage.

You as a consumer have a simple choice, don't buy from companies which use DRM, do buy from those companies which dont (don't pirate them either)

ComplexNumber
January 16th, 2007, 06:22 PM
if DRM truely is very impopular compitors without DRM would have a significant advantage.
thats why piratebay and other non-DRM services are doing a roaring trade

AlexC_
January 16th, 2007, 06:22 PM
ffi, I suggest you read up on DRM and the effects it can, and has caused. It takes away your rights, rights you legally have and locks the user in.

True boycotting by not buying DRM'd products is one way, but we shouldn't have to. DRM should have never been invented.

ffi
January 16th, 2007, 06:27 PM
ffi, I suggest you read up on DRM and the effects it can, and has caused. It takes away your rights, rights you legally have and locks the user in.

True boycotting by not buying DRM'd products is one way, but we shouldn't have to. DRM should have never been invented.

I know what DRM does, that why I switched to Linux :-D but I believe these companies are free to choose their business practices, they just can't count on my money [-(

MaximB
January 16th, 2007, 06:37 PM
another reason to PIRATE.

you see, people that BUY this media are not going to spread it, the are simple costumers.
but "Pirates" know their business, DRM is not going to stop them.
so if you are a "man of law" you WILL buy DRM (mainly b/z most people don't know what is DRM), in fact you are going to buy several copies of your favorite media just to play it in every Hardware you have.

what losers...
I say : FIGHT them ! don't let GREED eat them. Help them by NOT buying DRM !

Kernel Sanders
January 16th, 2007, 06:38 PM
DRM is about profit? Wow, in other news, the sky is blue....... :rolleyes:

AlexC_
January 16th, 2007, 06:46 PM
DRM is about profit? Wow, in other news, the sky is blue....... :rolleyes:

I knew DRM was about profit, but this is Hollywood actually admitting to it.

rai4shu2
January 16th, 2007, 06:50 PM
As it turns out, five devices authorized for playback is too many, and the studios apparently believe that this is "just as bad" as piracy. Hollywood believes that iTunes Store customers will add their buddies' devices to their authorization list, and like evil communists, they'll share what they have purchased.

Hehe. Evil communists. :-D

ComplexNumber
January 16th, 2007, 06:54 PM
i always thought that there were 2 reasons for DRM:
1) to maximise profit
2) most importantly, to lock out labels from each other's content so they can keep the content all to themselves. this also locks out the artist from their own work, and i find that despicable!

ffi
January 16th, 2007, 06:57 PM
Hehe. Evil communists. :-D

Since when do communists share? They useally just take other peoples properties, just label the other capitalists or bourgeois, because they think everything rightfully belongs to them.

Bezmotivnik
January 16th, 2007, 08:41 PM
Quick questions:

1: Which companies DRM their CDs and which don't? A site link's fine here.

2: Is Ubuntu 100% immune from existing DRMs in terms of copying and playback?

Thanks!

Mateo
January 16th, 2007, 08:54 PM
I don't even know what DRM is. Guess it doesn't effect me in any way.

AlexC_
January 16th, 2007, 10:21 PM
I don't even know what DRM is. Guess it doesn't effect me in any way.

Ohhhhhh it most probably does, but you are just one of those millions of people that don't understand/know what DRM is and so can't see it's effects, this is why people need to be made aware of DRM so they can help destroy it.

Here are some links so you can know what drm is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Rights_Management
http://defectivebydesign.org/en/what_is_drm_digital_restrictions_management
http://www.drm.info/fsfe/why
http://www.digitalfreedom.org/

Yossarian
January 16th, 2007, 11:05 PM
Originally posted by Bezmotivnik
Quick questions:

1: Which companies DRM their CDs and which don't? A site link's fine here.

2: Is Ubuntu 100% immune from existing DRMs in terms of copying and playback?

Thanks!

1. According to a recent thread here no one does anymore. Thread (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=335501), original article (http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/78008/index.html)

If you want to buy any already released albums, I would look the specific title up, but I have no idea where you would go to do that.

2. Don't know, but I'm pretty sure almost any non-trivial DRMed formats will not play on a Ubuntu system.

Mateo
January 16th, 2007, 11:16 PM
well I know that much, but I don't know of any real life examples, just this abstract idea. where does it exist? why have i never run into it, even by accident? Is it like those old divx movies that expired after so many viewings? i don't see the problem here. just don't buy from the people who sell these products.

doobit
January 18th, 2007, 07:30 PM
DRM is about profit? Wow, in other news, the sky is blue....... :rolleyes:

DRM is about power and control, not just profit. It's about squashing the little entertainment ants - the performers who want to make it on their own, be independent, open source, etc. It's about profit - keeping it all to themselves. There's nothing wrong with making a profit, but there is a lot wrong with using your power to oppress the dreams of others.
If you don't think it's alive and well, just download Windows Media player 11 on your Windows XP machine and see if it doesn't restrict your life.

rai4shu2
January 18th, 2007, 08:30 PM
Since when do communists share? They useally just take other peoples properties, just label the other capitalists or bourgeois, because they think everything rightfully belongs to them.

Maybe so for one particular implementation. I seem to recall communes working just fine long before "democracy" came along. And if it weren't for certain monks building the foundations of modern civilization (sharing their wisdom freely, I might add), we'd all still be living in the dark ages.

Hendrixski
January 18th, 2007, 08:40 PM
The only thing that sucks more than DRM is Communism

It is not the job of the government to implement a system that doesn't work, whether it's a political system or a business model that is outdated by technological advance.

tommytom
January 18th, 2007, 09:38 PM
Ahhh, Brilliant nothing like mentioning Communism to stir up the Yanks!! I had a Sony Net Mini Disc it came with a horrible progam (Sonicstage?) which you had to use so it would convert to the MD format, fair enough, except you could only get it for windoze. Also the MP3 ripper that they gave out with the Mini Disc only allowed you to transfer YOUR files 3 times to YOUR MINI DISC. That's the same Sony who invented the Bettamax Video recorder and made millions of cassette recorders, smacks of hypocrisy to me. And as for Apple well........ :( i don't use any of their products, got a cheap .mp3 player which doubles as a usb pendrive. And thats how DRM affects us all :)
Btw- Does Windows Vista have support for palladium?

IYY
January 18th, 2007, 10:02 PM
There's nothing wrong with making a big profit and these companies are not forcing you to buy DRM, you buy it because you want have it. No rights are taken away...

Actually, these companies do want to force you to buy DRM, and are slowly succeeding. Today, you still have the option to buy a CD you can rip, a DVD you can play on multiple devices, a song you can share... These rights will very quickly disappear, however, if we don't do something soon. Here's what's coming up in the near future:

1. All devices that are capable of playing media will have to have DRM implemented in the hardware level, or else be considered illegal.

2. All popular media will only be distributed in a strict DRM format.

3. All other media will be forced to follow the same model, because most hardware will only be able to play DRM media.

Even using Linux won't save you. In fact, it's likely that we'll be seeing a lot less hardware support soon due to our refusal to allow DRM. For example, you will soon not be able to play your audio CDs or video DVDs on your PC unless it's running Vista, with all the DRM stuff turned on.

So, as for your first statement:


There's nothing wrong with making a big profit

That's true, everyone has the right to try and make a big profit. However, the ability to make profit should not be guaranteed and protected by law. If your business model is no longer profitable, too bad! These media companies think they have some right to make money, and change the laws of the country to enable them to do so (and it's working!)

tommytom
January 18th, 2007, 10:11 PM
From the mouth of the oracle himself...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8p9IU4zp7mU

and

http://www.billxu.com/friend/rms/zeuux.rms.anti.drm.html


WE'RE NOT WORTHY!! (in a Waynes World stylee)

euler_fan
January 18th, 2007, 10:22 PM
DRM is about profit? Wow, in other news, the sky is blue....... :rolleyes:

Well said!

I tend to think we as consumers should certainly have the right to buy a license to a song, for example, and port it to any media we wish to hear it played on and to back it up to prevent copy from deteriorating this forcing us to buy another. So on that point I agree with many of you.

On the other hand, I also look at it this way: when I buy a ticket to a concert, then I am paying the artist, crew, production company, et al to go through the effort of making music and performing it for me. And frankly, if I buy a ticket to an Eric Clapton concert, I want to go see Eric Clapton, not some rogue impersonating him. If DRM acts like a certificate of authenticity by saying to me "hey, this is an authentic license to listen to and enjoy this song/CD and the creators have been given their due" then I would be more than happy to pay for it out of appreciation for the job well done.

VigilanteNighthawk
February 3rd, 2007, 03:45 AM
DRM [B]isn't[B] just about locking down content. If that were the case, I couldn't care a less about it. I just would watch Youtube and be done with it. The problem is that DRM is much worse, and it has the potential to end open source software for good if taken to its ultimate conclusion. Currently, they are beginning to build "trusted" hardware. The Pentium D currently has a DRM built right into it. Now, imagine that every program that has to run has to have DRM signature to run. Well, open source projects won't be able to pay the fees, and even if they can, they won't get signed. Why? Because open source projects won't abide by their restrictions. Also, any modification to the code will nullify the signature, making it unrunnable.

Ah, but you can still run it on linux, correct? Well, you can, [B]if[B] you will still be able to install linux, that is. With TC modules in the hardware, they could make it so that the OS has to be signed, with signatures encoded into the bios, as well as a module that verifies the bios itself. In such a situtation, Linux would either have to implement DRM and close its source, or it would be unrunnable without at least modifying the mother board. Installing linux ten years from now could be 20 times harder than installing it on an xbox is today.

teaker1s
February 3rd, 2007, 04:22 AM
or like me just find interests not DRM infested,it's not as hard as it seems:lolflag:

steven8
February 3rd, 2007, 06:16 AM
Bill Xu:
Many big companies ,especially those companies that want to use DRM, are trying to decrease the consumer's control of computer, by controlling the computer themselves. Then the consumer lost the freedom again. And they usually call this "Trusted Computing". What is the truth about "Trusted Computing"?

Richard Stallman:
That term refers to the conspiracy of a group of megacorporations to change the design of all future computers. The idea is that they will be able to trust your computer to obey them--instead of you.

They call this "trusted computing"; we call it "treacherous computing". These terms reflect different points of view. From the point of view of the companies that want to cripple your future computers, it's "trusted". From your point of view, it's treacherous.

More precisely, their plan is to build limits into future computers so that there will be jobs you cannot program them to do. For instance, there will be web sites that you can't program the machine to talk to, or files that you can't program the machine to access. They literally won't work with any program that you might write. Only programs that are specially authorized will be able to access these files or these sites.

In other words, these "computers" won't be real computers. A computer is a universal machine: one that can be programmed to do any task that can be done, to do anything that any other machine could have done. When the machine is designed to be impossible for the user to program to do certain jobs, it isn't a real computer.

I am not speculating when I speak of a conspiracy of companies. This conspiracy is not secret -- it even has a web site. Today's megacorporations are so arrogant that they don't bother to disguise their plots to restrict the public. They think they rule the world. We need to show them they do not.

I believe this says it all for me.

the_darkside_986
February 3rd, 2007, 07:04 AM
With the age of the internet, record labels are no longer as important as they once were. Artists could perhaps find a way to publish and sell their material on the internet. Then, the corporate fascist record label monsters would all disappear and quit bribing the government to make stupid restrictive laws. I'll watch a DVD on Linux if I damn well please.
As far as Hollywood is concerned, there aren't really any movies these days that I would consider watching more than once or zero times. Rental is the best option...

Henry Rayker
February 3rd, 2007, 07:16 AM
I love the language...Digital Rights Management...never realized the word "management" meant solely to reduce or remove...

steven8
February 3rd, 2007, 07:18 AM
I love the language...Digital Rights Management...never realized the word "management" meant solely to reduce or remove...

Folks can spin it any way they want, but what you say is true. . .