DVD DRM row sparks user rebellion
-
Michael Dunn wrote:
That's what RIAA and MPAA want you to think. Removing DRM != stealing
So I guess you won't mind at all if I remove any and all limitations from PimpFish, and freely distribute it to whomever I please for no charge and with no compensation to you. Plus, I'll have your complete blessing to reverse engineer it, and include its functionality in MY application, also with no compensation to you.
-------------------------------- "All that is necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing" -- Edmund Burke
Richie308 wrote:
freely distribute it to whomever I please for no charge and with no compensation to you
No, that would be trafficing in stolen goods. DRM and hardware lock-in is a Bad Thing. Distributing softwre, music, videos etc to others without them paying for it is an Illegal Thing. Yes, one makes the other easier, but they aren't the same.
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
The 9 things Microsoft should be announcing at MIX07 (but won't)
-
Oh you dirty little tease - that's not fair to do in the Lounge!
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF! VCF Blog
Hey... Richie308 has the IP rights for that one. Blame him!!!
-
Michael Dunn wrote:
That's what RIAA and MPAA want you to think. Removing DRM != stealing
So I guess you won't mind at all if I remove any and all limitations from PimpFish, and freely distribute it to whomever I please for no charge and with no compensation to you. Plus, I'll have your complete blessing to reverse engineer it, and include its functionality in MY application, also with no compensation to you.
-------------------------------- "All that is necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing" -- Edmund Burke
Richie308 wrote:
So I guess you won't mind at all if I remove any and all limitations from PimpFish, and freely distribute it to whomever I please for no charge and with no compensation to you.
Which is all well and good, but that's not what we're talking about. I want to be able to watch the movies on linux, or to rip them to xvid to watch on my standalone player. I've no interest in distributing them with no charge or compensation to the movie makers, I just want to be able to use the movie that I purchased as I see fit. DRM doesn't let me do so, removal of it does.
David Parrott
-
Playing Devils advocate here but DRM has no little or no effect on piracy, in a sense they are trying to lock the door after the horse has bolted - Go onto any torrent network and see the millions of people online to prove it. In the end DRM just impacts on legitimate consumers (as in the article), without raising a sweat on the illegitimate ISO buffs. Corps like the RIAA just promote bad feeling, scare tactics and confusion.
-
Michael Dunn wrote:
That's what RIAA and MPAA want you to think. Removing DRM != stealing
So I guess you won't mind at all if I remove any and all limitations from PimpFish, and freely distribute it to whomever I please for no charge and with no compensation to you. Plus, I'll have your complete blessing to reverse engineer it, and include its functionality in MY application, also with no compensation to you.
-------------------------------- "All that is necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing" -- Edmund Burke
Guess again - THAT would be stealing...
-
Richie308 wrote:
The nerve of people who think that they are entitled to have HD movies for free is very much like the illegal aliens who think they are entitled to U.S. citizenship simply because they made it across the border.
The issue over the DRM key has nothing to do with wanting the disc for free - it has to do with wanting to watch the movie YOU BOUGHT on a device other than the DVD player the content producers tell you you can play it on. Thus, the big row over iTunes and iPod lockin and why Steve Jobs is pushing the music industry to sell music online without DRM.
Cheers, Patrick
GJ Patrick, < The issue over the DRM key has nothing to do with wanting the disc for free - it has to do with wanting to watch the movie YOU BOUGHT on a device other than the DVD player the content producers tell you you can play it on. > It also has to do with playing the Music and movies You Bought on your network in your home that you expect to work with 'Whole House' Media Systems It also has to do with 'the legal endeavor' of making a personal backup copy.
-
Hey... Richie308 has the IP rights for that one. Blame him!!!
I'm afraid he'll Copy and Paste me to death! That or expose the deadly double entendre that we've all come to grasp! Either way he makes me 'ascared! :)
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF! VCF Blog
-
Michael Dunn wrote:
That's what RIAA and MPAA want you to think. Removing DRM != stealing
So I guess you won't mind at all if I remove any and all limitations from PimpFish, and freely distribute it to whomever I please for no charge and with no compensation to you. Plus, I'll have your complete blessing to reverse engineer it, and include its functionality in MY application, also with no compensation to you.
-------------------------------- "All that is necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing" -- Edmund Burke
You're f***n dumb to think RIAA and MPAA puts drm to avoid pirating movies and stuff. From the beginning of computing people stole code, programs and data everywhere. That is not new. But manufacturer are always trying to boost their profits because a company that does not grow, is shrinking. So, if you don't find ways for making your customer buying your stuff, you'll be constrained to bankruptcy. Media giants are selling a whole lot of music, movies and other contents, but the offer is always very high and the demand tend to diminish due to all the free media content on the net, so they are trying to sue everybody that is posting media content under copyright to the www and obligate people to buy their stuff instead of sharing it with each other. That a reaction of the industry to boost their sales. For sure, that is not to protect artists and movie makers. They are all very rich and they don't care about people who buy their disc. If they did care, they'll sell them at much lower prices so we'll prefer to buy a real genuine version for 10$ of quality instead of a crappy, poorly compressed version that we download and delete after viewing it. I'm sure that a dvd doesn't cost 30$ to make, I can buy a pack of 50 dvds for 16$... so stop trying to make us pay too much, sell at the real price and we'll buy it. Until then, happy downloading for every one.
-
Richie308 wrote:
This is where you are wrong. Because once I do pay for PimpFish, I am still bound by the license agreement. And if the license agreement states that I am not to remove any technical limitations, then I would be wrong to do so.
There is no license agreement when buying music. I buy MY copy of the music to do with what I wish, within the limitations of the law, meaning I don't get to give it away to others. It is and always has been your fair use right to format-shift and time-shift media. Think recording stuff on your VCR, which the Supreme Court ruled legal. What the DMCA did is remove that right by making it illegal to use the technical means to do so - that is, removing DRM so that you can play, for example, a DVD on your computer instead of the DVD player. Oh, you still have your fair use rights, they say - it's just illegal for you to exercise them.
Richie308 wrote:
I think some people grasp at straws to find any rationale they can in order to make it OK to dishonor the IP rights of others.
I think it's sad when someone has bought the corporate line hook, line and sinker without regard to their own rights.
Cheers, Patrick
This ultra-pro-business will hopefully begin to reverse after the 2008 elections. So much media protection has been lost for 'the people': former regulations that prevented a single media corporation from dominating the media in a single market (multiple TV stations, for example) are gone. I'll cut short my desire to launch a tirade of how much damage has been done through buyouts, mergers, and acquisitions from regulatory agencies that don't regulate anything if you have enough PAC money. The issue here would seem to be that if a new DRM scheme comes out, and requires any sort of new equipment, then that should be clearly stated on the packaging (in a legable font). After that, it's the same as buying any media: if you buy a DVD and all you have to play it on is a VCR, then you need to consider purchasing the player or returning the disk. BUT, by the same token, it should be illegal for a piece of media to modify the operation of your PC (etc.), and the corporations that do so should be subject to severe criminal and civil fines. It's not their right to modify YOUR equipment. Period. To do so MUST be at their risk in every sense of the word. The scenario becomes, more and more, one of laws preempting rights in order to prevent 'crimes' that didn't occur, and might never occur. Damn - outlaw matches - just in case you might use them to commit arson.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
-
Michael Dunn wrote:
That's what RIAA and MPAA want you to think. Removing DRM != stealing
So I guess you won't mind at all if I remove any and all limitations from PimpFish, and freely distribute it to whomever I please for no charge and with no compensation to you. Plus, I'll have your complete blessing to reverse engineer it, and include its functionality in MY application, also with no compensation to you.
-------------------------------- "All that is necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing" -- Edmund Burke
-
idiot
"there is no spoon" {me}
creep
-------------------------------- "All that is necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing" -- Edmund Burke
-
Michael Dunn wrote:
That's what RIAA and MPAA want you to think. Removing DRM != stealing
So I guess you won't mind at all if I remove any and all limitations from PimpFish, and freely distribute it to whomever I please for no charge and with no compensation to you. Plus, I'll have your complete blessing to reverse engineer it, and include its functionality in MY application, also with no compensation to you.
-------------------------------- "All that is necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing" -- Edmund Burke
You seem to lack general reading comprehension skills. Nobody has said anything (that I've read) about copying DVD's. The guy that first hacked the DRM says he did it because he bought an HD-DVD that wouldn't play on the equipment he already owned. An "approved hardware" list for being able to watch a DVD is absolutely ridiculous.
Grim
(aka Toby)
MCDBA, MCSD, MCP+SB
SELECT * FROM users WHERE clue IS NOT NULL GO
(0 row(s) affected)
-
Michael Dunn wrote:
That's what RIAA and MPAA want you to think. Removing DRM != stealing
So I guess you won't mind at all if I remove any and all limitations from PimpFish, and freely distribute it to whomever I please for no charge and with no compensation to you. Plus, I'll have your complete blessing to reverse engineer it, and include its functionality in MY application, also with no compensation to you.
-------------------------------- "All that is necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing" -- Edmund Burke
Richie308 wrote:
So I guess you won't mind at all if I remove any and all limitations from PimpFish
So PimpFish wont be limited to being a browser plugin?:laugh: What limitations would you remove? I'm sure Michael Dunn would love to get some insight on the limitations of Pimpfish and how you think they could be removed.:-D You seem confused. PimpFish is not some media content you purchased that requires a special hardware device to decrypt it.
Richie308 wrote:
and freely distribute it to whomever I please for no charge and with no compensation to you.
This obvously has nothing to do with DRM. I think you are confusing pirating with removing DRM.
Richie308 wrote:
Plus, I'll have your complete blessing to reverse engineer it, and include its functionality in MY application, also with no compensation to you.
Again this is pirating that your talking about. Removing DRM = Decrypting your media Decrypting your media != pirating Thanks.
-
I agree. They are fighting the wrong people and forcing them into a very difficult position. I hope digg doesn't get too screwed over this.
I agree. It's unfair to Digg that its own users put it in a state where it can be prosecuted.
-
While this "rebellion" was taking place last night, all I could think of was this[^].
Jon Sagara This is the stuff we'll drink on special occasions. To paraphrase my father-in-law, this is the kind of wine that results in kids. -- A friend Blog | Site | Articles
OH! That's below the belt!
-
Shog9 wrote:
i'm not wearing a collar
And let's just stop there. God only knows where this could go from here, illegal immigrants, HD video, IP infringement, Mike's PimpFish software...it's enough to make my entire moral world view quake on it's foundation! Oh the sordid web we weave...
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF! VCF Blog
-
Playing Devils advocate here but DRM has no little or no effect on piracy, in a sense they are trying to lock the door after the horse has bolted - Go onto any torrent network and see the millions of people online to prove it. In the end DRM just impacts on legitimate consumers (as in the article), without raising a sweat on the illegitimate ISO buffs. Corps like the RIAA just promote bad feeling, scare tactics and confusion.
:~ I have what may be a reaaaally dumb question. Is there any way to make the media used, free to use any type of player and yet NOT be copied? :confused: If that were so it might limit some of the problems from both ends. ;) I don't know if it is possible or not. Maybe somebody with a lot more experience in this area might think about looking into the subject. :sigh: Just my one and one half cents worth. :laugh: P.S. - By the way the name calling is Sooooo childish. Theoretically we're all adults here (Although some seem to be more than others). :rolleyes:
-
:~ I have what may be a reaaaally dumb question. Is there any way to make the media used, free to use any type of player and yet NOT be copied? :confused: If that were so it might limit some of the problems from both ends. ;) I don't know if it is possible or not. Maybe somebody with a lot more experience in this area might think about looking into the subject. :sigh: Just my one and one half cents worth. :laugh: P.S. - By the way the name calling is Sooooo childish. Theoretically we're all adults here (Although some seem to be more than others). :rolleyes:
Not really, as I understand it all DRM can hope to do is limit the options available by: - Encrypting the media, requiring license to decrypt - Degrading the media, so after a few copies it becomes unwatchable - Creating new media formats which only play on protected hardware (as per subject of this post) Theoretically as long as you can input the media into a PC, there will always be a way to copy it to a non-DRM format - PC's are open framework by nature. But then again why would you not want to copy media? Think MP3\video players, backups, etc - Its sensible in some cases to make copies of media, but it leaves the system open to abuse. My own theory is that certain software, CD's, and DVD's are overpriced - Particularly 'classics' per se - If the media companies were to drop their prices then there would be less incentive to pirate as there would be less commercial value in it.
-
I agree. It's unfair to Digg that its own users put it in a state where it can be prosecuted.
WiseHacker wrote:
I agree. It's unfair to Digg that its own users put it in a state where it can be prosecuted
Unfair nothing! Digg's business model is built on user-contributed content; if Digg doesn't like what users are posting, they have two choices:
- Allow the undesirable posts to continue and keep the user community happy 2) Restrict/delete the undesirable posts and live with the consequences of an unhappy user community that happens to drive their revenue
Digg made a choice about how to handle the situation, and they will have to deal with the consequences
- Allow the undesirable posts to continue and keep the user community happy 2) Restrict/delete the undesirable posts and live with the consequences of an unhappy user community that happens to drive their revenue
-
No, I've just exposed the double standard of some people who make their livings via intellectual property, yet who disrespect the IP rights of others.
-------------------------------- "All that is necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing" -- Edmund Burke
Richie308 wrote:
No, I've just exposed the double standard of some people who make their livings via intellectual property, yet who disrespect the IP rights of others.
You mean like the way the entertainment industry disrepects my fair-use rights?
