Slashdot Log In
IBM CPRM Plan Replaced with Similar Copy-Prevention Plan
Posted by
michael
on Fri Feb 23, 2001 05:15 PM
from the old-wine-in-new-bottles dept.
from the old-wine-in-new-bottles dept.
Several people submitted the news that IBM withdrew its CPRM plan yesterday - some of them with blurbs like "We Won! Yay!". But only a few people got the additional information that it was simply replaced with another extremely similar copy-prevention scheme, this one from Phoenix Technologies, well known for their widely used BIOS's. Even though the committee responsible for this has been deluged with email in opposition, the CPRM group (led by Paul Anderson and Jeffrey Lotspiech of IBM) continues to press forward, distributing propagandistic lies about how the system will protect [sic] your fair-use right to access and use digital content. Update: 02/24 7:20 PM EST by michael : The Register has even more information from Andre Hedrick.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Vote with your wallet. (Score:2)
If your new OS demands you have a hard drive with copy protection, don't use it, or wait a few minutes for those people who break copy checks on games to modify your OS. If your recording-industry-sponsored music sharing program demands a hard drive with copy protection, don't use it. I've yet to see a single industry music-sharing idea that holds a candle to napster and/or napigator, and we all know better than to believe WMA or SDMI are suddenly going to replace MP3.
Phoenix evil? (Score:2)
Alex Bischoff
---
Any details on the Phoenix plan? (Score:2)
Oh, boy, not again... (Score:2)
I'm all for copy-protection. But only if it's of an ethical sort. In my book, to be ethical, it needs to follow four basic guidelines. All four of these are equally important, so don't go reading into the order or anything:
Of course, these four violate other guidelines than the ones I mentioned, but I used each of these examples because they're particularly well-known for the problem I listed them under.
Note that no known computer-based copy-protection scheme falls under these. But other methods work. Among them: competent law enforcement. There are many other ways to capture pirates. They're not as effective, but unlike the current popular methods they don't punish perfectly innocent people along with The Bad Guys.
----------
Re:It's just sad (Score:2)
The problem is that none of the capitalists involved are interested in efficiency or competition. They're motivated by a desire to destroy their competition and get maximum profits.
Consumers in a capitalist system want producers to have minimum profits and pass the savings back. But businesses keep trying to become monopolies, and when they do they pretty much inevitably try to exert that monopoly power to get more wealth, ruining the capitalist landscape.
If capitalism had a built in governor that could prevent the system from degrading like that, it'd be totally sweet. It's not though.
Is there a better system? Perhaps. Has it been discovered? Sadly, no. Find me something better than capitalism and I'd be all for it. I'm not stupid; I want things that are good, regardless of what the name is. If Communism or Socialism were better I'd be in favor of them. As it stands, we're doing best with Capitalism, but it's certainly not good enough to make me satisfied.
As for property, you're an idiot. Sorry, don't mean to be flame-happy, but it's true. As has been explained countless times on
Unless you've got a better one, the working definition of property is that is is something that can meet three criteria. 1) that the owner be able to use and enjoy the thing 2) that they can let others use it at their sufferance 3) that they can dispose of it.
Information meets the first one just fine, we all know that.
But as for the second, when you let other people read your novel, you can't have it back. The manuscript, yes. The words, no. I can recite whole portions of books, movies, songs, etc. from memory. It's not unusual. But if I were to place them in a commercial venue, it would be infringement. Clearly my memories are sufficient to count, yet, my memories are clearly not ownable. Nor would it be desirable for them to be. People with photographic memories can and do read books once and never need to refer to a printed copy again. Yet if they read a book, it is not considered copyright infringement unless they copied it out again. Still, the information from the book was copied into their noggins and can't fulfill requirement #2.
The third is just the same. The author holds the original copy of a work in their head, generally. Then they copy it out to some medium. Copies in a medium may be protected, but not the intangible portion of the work - the exact words, the look of a painting, shape of a sculpture, etc.
Copyrights are entirely different. While no one can own the words in a book, they can own an artificial and limited right granted under certain conditions, for certain purposes by the government. This right permits them exclusively to make copies of the work without legal liability, for as long as the government permits it to exist. (which is regulated) The right is property - it can be used, extended or withdrawn to others, or given away or destroyed. But then again, it's not information.
Re:It's just sad (Score:2)
If words can be property, there's no purpose in copyright law. But they aren't property. They can't be property, unless you adopt a Newspeak approach to language in which words can be what you want them to mean. (heh - words are property, love is hate, war is peace)
Copyrights do serve a useful purpose, when used as instructed. We haven't been for the last few decades though, and it shows. If there were significant reform in the realm of copyright - a drastic shortening of terms, laws emphasizing the utilitarian model, stricter requirements for registration and extensions of works, better archiving - it could be an extraordinarily good thing. However the concept that words can be property is offensive and quite wrong. It's possible to be for a good copyright system and against IP in about the same way that it's possible to be for moderate use of alcohol but against drunkeness.
Unfortunately our government is listening more towards moneyed interests and foreign powers than it is to us, the jerkoffs.
Re:3 card Monty, etc (Score:2)
It was part of a speech by James Philpot Curran of Ireland. In 1790.
The actual quote is: "The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime, and punishment of his guilt."
It gets paraphrased effectively enough though.
Re:OpenBIOS (Score:2)
If a quarter million Slashdotters each Paypal in a buck or two that might make a good start if it winds up in the hands of someone that can be trusted not to blow it all on administrative salaries like some "charities", and if that someone knows the right way to manage the project and the money.
Re:is www.theregister.co.uk dead? (Score:2)
I can e-mail you a copy of whatever Reg article you can't get if you let me know which one.
Re:A Modest Proposal (Score:2)
Nope, it's really easy.
First, you get a logo designed and trademarked. Then, in your Copious Spare Time, you evalute a bunch of devices. If they prove compliant, then you send a polite letter to the manufacturer saying, "Congratulations! Your Flabloden model #XP-Z7 meets the conditions for bearing the OMI compliance symbol. As you may be aware, OMI is an organization dedicated to promoting the values of [blah blah blah...] So that consumers will be able to more readily identify your product as safe, you are authorized to use the OMI logo on the specific-named product, and on product-related promotional literature and Web sites. Encapsulated Postscript and PNG files of approved logo imagery may be obtained from..."
Some manufacturers may choose not to bother, but their stuff still gets listed on the OMI Web site. So a central resource listing approved devices still exists, and people can still make informed choices.
Yes, it's a massive exercise in reputation-building. No better time to start than now...
Schwab
nice one michael (Score:2)
I know damn well it's up to us, not you, to dig for both sides of the story ... but that's just cold man. Do you really think the tripe 99% of us are going to send to these guys is going to have a positive effect on their stance?
Re:It's just sad (Score:2)
--
Re:3 card Monty, etc (Score:2)
Not in the USA, where "anyone with big bucks" ==* "government".
* I did put the "==" to make believe that I program in C, but in reality, I'm a Delphi [borland.com] junkie...
--
Re:Bad. but not TOO bad. (Score:2)
When you give the auditors the power to do whatever they please, someday when they come to check you out you will find the sad truth:
The auditor never leaves until he finds SOMETHING. If you don't believe me, ask any auditor.
-
Re:OT: Brazil (Score:2)
(http://www.trond.com/brazil/b_faq02.html)
"Scheinberg's editors Bill Gordean and Steve Lovejoy created an edit which cut out many of the dream sequences and essential threads in the plot of Brazil, while splicing in all elements of humor and all usable footage involving Sam Lowry and Jill Layton, the "dream girl". If that wasn't bad enough, Gordean and Lovejoy also lopped off the entire ending sequence which involved Sam Lowry's interrogation (and eventual loss of sanity) by his coworker Jack Lint. Instead, they chose to end the film where Sam finally consummates his relationship with Jill, and escapes with her to the country. Also suggested was the replacement of Kamen's symphonic score with one of rock music - in order to "attract teens."
If that doesn't make you sick, I don't know what will. Anyway, after rereading the FAQ, it appears that this edit was not the one released in the US after all, but only due to a LOT of pressure:
"Universal finally opened Gilliam's 132 minute cut of Brazil at two theaters in Los Angeles on Christmas Day, 1985, later slowly bringing it across the country in a limited number of theatres with limited advertising."
I just wonder how many directors were not as 'lucky' as Terry Gilliam was.
Re:It's just sad (Score:2)
Re:It's just sad (Score:2)
Re:Bad. but not TOO bad. (Score:2)
It's getting easier and easier to face the fate of Mr. Tuttle^WButtle I'm afraid.
---
[1] Preferably the European version and definitely NOT the unbelievably stupid US one. I can't believe the nerves they had to happy-end that movie. Hollywood makes me sick.
Re:A Modest Proposal (Score:2)
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
OT: Brazil (Score:2)
And I thought I'd heard it all...
Thank [insert focus of believe system here] I have a copy of the original.
Cheers,
Tim
Re:It's just sad (Score:2)
-jon
Re:It's just sad (Score:2)
Oooooh...capitalistic. How terrible. Please propose a system which works better than capitalism. There are about hundred million dead people from Stalin, Mao, and other various Communist goons' experiments in non-capitalism.
I don't understand how you can believe that a physical item can be owned but a non-physical item can't. Of course, if you don't believe in private ownership of physical items, please post your address and leave your door open tonight. Someone will stop by and borrow your stuff.
-jon
Re:It's just sad (Score:2)
True socialism would be fully government organized redistribution of all goods and services. I don't think Canada does that, but it's been a few years since I've been there.
-jon
Re:It's just sad (Score:2)
I'm not even talking about the totalitarian aspects of the USSR. But they do logically flow from a lot of Communist theology. How do you force people to give up their private property and give according to their skills and only take according to their means? A one-way trip to Siberia was the prime motivator, since the kindness of people's hearts wasn't working.
This is a bit tangential, but it's interesting to note how many of the peace and love and sharing gurus are serious control freaks. Draw your own parallels to the rise of totalitarianism in the USSR.
-jon
Re:It's just sad (Score:2)
And these things have nothing to do with anything inherit in captialism. Collective farms and not allowing individual initiative have everything to do with communism. Try again.
Our punishment for socially unacceptable behaviour is not that different, despite our best efforts to convince us otherwise.
Yes, but our rules are different. Rather than THOU SHALL most of them are formulated as THOU SHALL NOT. It's easier to NOT do something than it is to do it. It's also more moral, IMHO, to hold people accountable for sins of comission rather than sins of omission. If you can't see the difference between the two, I don't have anything to say to you.
If it weren't for this greed factor, I'm sure socialism or communism would work extremely well.
Well, duh. You mean a system that works based on motivations that people actually have is a good idea? Wow! You know, if it wasn't for gravity, I bet I could jump really high!
-jon
Re:It's just sad (Score:2)
And I agree completely with you. I am one of the few people who doesn't mind paying taxes. I get stuff for them, even if that stuff is educating someone else's kids. It's all in my best interest, because it builds a better society.
What I was disagreeing with was the use of the word "Capitalist" as a slur. Capitalism is the best system yet devised to distribute goods and services. The distribution might not always be as equitable as everyone would like, but it beats all the alternatives.
-jon
Re:It's just sad (Score:2)
You mention three conditions for something to be "property." Your third condition is that it is possible to destroy it. How does, oh, land, fit that requirement? Sure, you could nuke it, but for most of the 5,000 years of civilization, land was permanent. It met your first two requirements, but not your third.
How about digital streaming video? It meets all three of your requirements; it can be used by the owner, the owner can lend it out ON HIS OWN TERMS, and it can be destroyed (the original is deleted). If you don't like the terms, don't use it. If you agree to the terms and ignore them, you're a liar. If you don't agree to the terms and use it anyway, you're a thief. Take your pick.
-jon
Re:C-64 copy protection nostalgia (slightly OT) (Score:2)
For those who don't know, C-64 copy protection often seemed to involve intentionally messing up part of the disk in a particular way, so that when you tried to read from that part, you'd get an error code. Then, they'd just have their program try to read the disk in that spot - if there wasn't an error, or it wasn't the RIGHT error, it was obviously a copy ("Obviously", copy programs wouldn't copy errors, would they? [More advanced bit-for-bit 'nibbler' copiers popped up in short order that DID, so you could once again make functional backups of your software...but I digress.]) The problem is, every time the floppy drive hit an error, it would reset itself by "banging" the head repeatedly against the stop, eventually knocking it out of alignment.
Ah, yes, when I was in high school, I worked afternoons and weekends in the local computer store as a bench technician on C64s. Our number one service request was realigning the r/w head on the 1541 drive because of this. At $65 a pop (in 1980's money) it was quite lucrative...
Re:It's just sad (Score:2)
Unless you are a health care provider....In that case it is illegal to try to sell your services outside of the govt run socialist system.
Re:It's just sad (Score:2)
Not so fast there with those conclusions, pardner! Socialist systems have no competition to spur them to improve. If the socialist service sucks, and no private alternative is available, then you are up a creek. I work in healthcare along side plenty of ex Canadian docs and nurses with all types of horror stories of how long people would have to wait for an operation to end their pain. And in many cases, the care simply would not be provided and the canadian citizen has to fly down to the states and get pay to get the care they need. It is illegal for Canadian docs to even offer alternative services to those of the socialist system. This is unlike the British system where there are private health care alternatives for those who aren't content to wait a long time to get service. It's all about options - options are a good thing from a consumer standpoint.
I would like to see private education companies compete for the business of running local schools (they would win contracts and use public buildings). Outcomes could be measured and contracts would be renewed on a merit basis. If the education company gets a good rep, then they'll get more contracts. In the current public school system, there is little pressure for schools to compete and improve.
I agree with you on law enforcement.
As far as IP relates to either Socialism or Capitalism, I think that IP is an inherently anticompetitive construct. I would like to see companies compete purely on the basis of timely delivery of quality products and services at the best possible price. IP adds artificial constraints to competition and in that sense is anticapitalist IMHO. Allowing ideas and patterns to become "capital" stifles the competition that is essential to capitalism.
Re:It's just sad (Score:2)
The importance of that statement cannot be understated. People are getting informed and a little organized. Hopefully groups like the EFF and such can become a more powerful voice of reason. But it's up to us.
Re:OpenBIOS (Score:2)
I haven't got an mailing list email for it in a couple of months, and the last few were about LinuxBIOS.
I, however, will continue to listen and help out if other poeple do. I may be changing jobs soon (I'm fscking bored with my current one), and hope that maybe my next employer will like the idea. I'm looking at Amirix [amirix.com] in my city who does embedded Debian and if they think so too (I'm specifically trained in embedded), there might be a chance for revival. I want to change my dev board design [funktronics.ca] to PCI and make it better.
I'm giving my current employer one more chance before I take off (long story, even though it's a Linux company...).
Of all the projects I've been involved in, I thing OpenBIOS is the most important, though I haven't shown it lately...
If you're interested, I'd be extremely happy to talk to you. I still have a load of great OB email talking about the initial design issues.
OpenBIOS (Score:2)
The major BIOS companies don't seem to like the idea of developing technology to benefit users. I wouldn't either, if I was stuck in that market. It gives them no competitive advantage.
Companies have tried and created better BIOS software but failed because the big guys can sell them cheaper, and will continue to do so by not caring about useability and such.
It seems the only way to actually improve it is to remove the financial burden on the developer's part.
This is an application open source is perfect for. Individual developers, chipmakers, and motherboard manufacturers can make a much better BIOS through collaboration and openness. SiS has already jumped on it, and the Los Alamos National Laboratory have created a temporary solution called LinuxBIOS, which is fulfilling a current need.
Costs go down for everybody at a point and a community will undercut companies like Phoenix. The end result is a better BIOS and an open system.
So far the only problem has been time and resources. Debugging a BIOS is more complicated than debugging a CLI app, and those of us already involved are quite busy with other things. We need to get over the first hump of a well planned initial design that satisfies all requirements yet allows for easy expansion.
Maybe someday...
Re:It's just sad (Score:2)
Neither is the US. The US has government owned companies that make money such as the US Postal Service.
Canada has more of these companies, we call them crown corporations. The belief is that some services are too important to allow them to go bankrupt. If they don't make enough money, the taxpayers pay the difference and we still get the service. If they make more money than they need, the money can go to other crown corporations such as health care and education.
That's how it's supposed to work at least. I am, for the most part, very happy with it. Essential services stay cheap for everyone and our health care and education remains fairly good, despite the low funding (I am comparing to the States here).
Over the last while the trend has been to spin some of them off, especially at the provincial level. Those ones sometimes end up having a hard time because of the potential outcries of increased prices but services and wages usually ramp up in the end, once it all settles. Larger companies are free to buy them as well.
I don't know of any totally capitalist societies out there, and I doubt it would actually work. Successful countries have done it with a careful mix.
I see your point, but... (Score:2)
To top it off, the pro line will be slightly more expensive (say, $200 for a consumer drive, while the pro drive is $250) - not enough to piss a normal business off, but enough to make consumers shy away from it via sticker shock, if they see what is going on, and can figure out a way around providing proof.
Worldcom [worldcom.com] - Generation Duh!
Let me propose a better tactic.. (Score:2)
What do you think the IBMs and Maxtors of the world would do, if they had a million returned units on their hands? Per FTC rules, they can't resell them as new.
-jcr
Re:It's just sad (Score:2)
"Copy protection" is a vague and dangerous term.
- - - - -
Re:huh? (Score:2)
It was that awful picture from goatse.cx
$ ncftpget -F ftp://t13:$tandard$@ftp.t13.org/incoming/hello.jp
ncftpget: cannot open t13: username and/or password was not accepted for login
- - - - -
Re:A Modest Proposal (Score:3)
If you are sued, then the proscribed measures are in place, and OMI certification is denied. QED :-).
As for getting manufacturers to submit to testing, that would happen on a "pro-bono" basis, at least initially. Since an OMI certification currently has no value in the marketplace, manufacturers would have no reason to seek it. So studies and certifications would be done in a sort of "Consumer Reports" manner. Once OMI compliance becomes a consumer requirement, manufacturers will seek certification directly.
It's a risky proposition -- the risk being that the public may Just Not Give a Damn -- but I think it's worth a try.
Schwab
C-64 copy protection nostalgia (slightly OT) (Score:3)
[..]
remove the checking, and the problem is solved.
You know, I'm not big-time "hacker" (or "cracker", for that matter) or anything, but I can say that the very first thing I ever did with a computer that I could call a real "hack" involved exactly this issue.
For those who don't know, C-64 copy protection often seemed to involve intentionally messing up part of the disk in a particular way, so that when you tried to read from that part, you'd get an error code. Then, they'd just have their program try to read the disk in that spot - if there wasn't an error, or it wasn't the RIGHT error, it was obviously a copy ("Obviously", copy programs wouldn't copy errors, would they? [More advanced bit-for-bit 'nibbler' copiers popped up in short order that DID, so you could once again make functional backups of your software...but I digress.]) The problem is, every time the floppy drive hit an error, it would reset itself by "banging" the head repeatedly against the stop, eventually knocking it out of alignment.
Many years ago, I owned a copy of "Stellar 7" for the Commodore 64, and this one was particularly egregious about copy protection. As I recall, it read errors from the drive four times when you started loading, two or four times when you started a game, and two or four times every time you progressed from one level to another.
I got really tired of listening to my floppy drive knocking itself to pieces whenever I wanted to play a game, so I dug out a sector editor, found the bit of code that said (essentially) "if you don't get this error, stop" and tweaked it so that it would continue whether the error was there or not. Then I copied the disk sans errors, so I could play without ruining my floppy drive.
[sniffle]...ah, those were the days
---
"They have strategic air commands, nuclear submarines, and John Wayne. We have this"
maybe not such a good idea. (Score:3)
Right now one of the main reasons MS has such a huge monopoly on office software is because a huge number of people pirate their copy. Add to that the millions of copies that are pirated worldwide and you see what I mean. All of these people have zero incentive to explore lower cost, free or open source options because they can get office for free.
Imagine if nobody in the entire world could copy office!. Overnight the market share of perfect office, star office, smartsuite etc would rocket upward. Especially overseas where people would drop office like a hot potato because paying for it would mean giving up a years wage.
To fight this MS would have to drop their prices drasticaly which would be a good thing for everybody. It also would take away another cash cow from MS and that would be a good thing.
Sample of a letter to a drive manufacturer. (Score:3)
If at any time in the future, I purchase a Quantum storage device and discover that it has been crippled with CPRM, I will return it and demand a refund because such a device is defective.
If I encounter any reluctance on Quantum's part to pay this refund, rest assured that within the day I will both file a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission, and also instruct my attorney to register a class-action suit against Quantum for knowingly selling a defective product.
Unlike software manufacturers, you don't get to hide behind a disclaimer of implied warranty. A disk will store and retrieve what I want it to
store and retrieve, without any big-brother bullshit, or it is unfit for the purpose for which it is marketed and sold.
Please refer this note up your chain of command.
-jcr
CPRM? that's a net zero effect, isn't it? (Score:3)
is there any? am I missing something??
--
Re:It's just sad (Score:4)
Copyright law in the US is not based on the concept of intellectual property. The founding fathers believed in property as an absolute right which was recognized, not granted, by government. However copyright is an artificial right created by a government for a utilitarian reason - to encourage the arts and sciences. Copyright is not a governmental recognition of a natural right.
Therefore, it's quite logical that people who do not believe in intellectual property are upset at the perversion of copyright law.
Copyright is now being extended and defended on the basis of the 'intellectual property rights' of the copyright holders. There are no such rights.
It's just sad (Score:4)
That's how I feel today about all these news reports - the Feds teaming up against alt2600 in the DCCS case, Napster all but gone, and now these proposals to prevent our own information from being traded about.
Yes, I understand the need for copy protection - I hate it when folks sell pirated copies of games because I know that's money that should have gone to a hard working developer. But it seems that corporate interests have gone out on such an insane bend to make certain that the people who might rip them off don't - even at the expense of the privacy and freedoms of law abiding citizens.
Probably the worst part is the possibility of what might follow. There was a joke made that the RIAA will sue people who sing copyrighted songs in the showers. On Ubersoft [ubersoft.net] they have a joke about a gigantic company's word processing software preventing the federal government from prosecuting them for illegal actions by detecting what words are typed and changing them.
And that's what makes me so depressed about these articles. It always starts off for "the good" reasons - copy protection good, so copy protection technology has to be good too. The problem is that we all know we can't trust other people to make our own decisions for us, and the second that the power is taken out of our hands, the possibility for corruption is there. What happens when the "copy protection" technology is modified to not allowed "unsupported" or "illegal" software (ie: "dangerous" GPL software that doesn't make the corporations any money).
That's the problem with the copy control schemes. I don't fear people taking my words and claiming them for their own. I fear the people who might prevent my words from being seen at all in the name of "the good of the business" interests.
John "Dark Paladin" Hummel
Re:It's just sad (Score:4)
1)It's more inclusive - it describes all the DMCA-protected "advancements" we hate. In addition to technology which takes away our fair-use rights, it includes the really evil stuff like region-coding, limited usage content, subscription software, and so on. The problem with "copy protection" is that these companies don't want to stop there - they want to control everything we do with content.
2)It's inflammatory. The press picked up the term "partial-birth abortion" even though the medical term is "intact dilation and extraction". The language alone gave an awfully big boost to the prolife side on this one. "Copy control" does the same thing - it has the worst possible connotation and is still accurate. (Not trying to start the abortion debate, this is just an example. I have expressed no opinion on abortion itself, please don't use this thread to do so either. Go to Kuro5hin for that.)
A Modest Proposal (Score:5)
It seems there should be better fora for floating this idea, but I can't think of what they may be, and it seems time is no longer on our side. Thus:
The biggest problem is that the copy control technologies are insidious: They are inserted into flashy, cool devices or software without informing the customer they're there, thus thwarting their desire (or not) to avoid them. For example, did you know the latest WinAmp contains copy control measures from InterTrust? Of course not. AOL conveniently "forgot" to tell you.
We could create a list of products, companies, and/or technologies to avoid, but then the copy control philistines would simply change the names of their stuff on a regular basis, and the fight would devolve into a shell game. This lets them say, "Oh, no, we stopped incorporated CPRM at customer request!" and then fail to tell you that it simply got renamed to ICST (Insidious Citizen-Screwing Technology). You're still screwed, but they get to play PR games with us.
Thus, my proposal: I propose the creation of the Open Media Initiative, a non-profit entity whose charter is to analyze new digital hardware and software, and report whether they contain copy control measures. The Open Media Initiative (OMI) would promote the following values:
Note that only technological measures are addressed. Social and legal restrictions are free to exist (or not); the OMI simply prohibits their ensconcement in code or hardware. (For the purposes of the OMI, executable programs are considered data.)
Devices and software meeting this three-pronged test shall be eligible to use an OMI certification logo on their products, so that consumers will be able to immediately identify compliant, safe products, and avoid non-compliant ones. A list of products receiving certification would also appear on the OMI's Web site.
Yes, publicizing OMI and the OMI logo, at least in the "traditional" manner, would be horribly expensive. However, as things stand now, if you're a member of the tech community, and are rightfully repulsed by these encroachments on the freedoms we worked so hard to build into our systems, explaining the issues to, say, your grandmother could be a laborious process. However, if you could simply tell her, "Don't buy anything unless it has this logo on it," the problem is considerably simplified.
By way of example, current CD-ROM burners would be eligible for the OMI logo, as would Linux and the most recent rev of Unreal Tournament. SDMI-enabled MP3 players, Windows, and Quake3:Arena would not.
So, who's with me?
Schwab
(Dear Lord, what have I let myself in for?)
Re:It's just sad (Score:5)
The essence of copyright was that it was devised to promote the robust dissemination of information by compensating artists for their work. And -- as if that weren't enough -- the idea of "copyright" was that it was *limited* protection.
It's time Boies starts harping on this, too. The RIAA (and everyone else) is using "copyright" as a shield to legally (or, I suppose, illegally) construct monopolistic, monolithic conglomerates. That's not what "copyright" is about. Never has been but -- because of Hilary Rosen and Jack Valenti -- is clear that that's what it is becoming.
"Copyright" is yet another example of corporate exploitation. (As if we need another.)
Sorta like the absurd comments last week about the "dangers" of "open source" and how it threatens "intellectual property."
Come on, stop and think: *intellectual property*? What kind of capitalistic, corporate oxymoron is that? It's absurd and every day grows more so.
You do *not* want "optional" copy control (Score:5)
Why? Because choices like this are seldom left to the user.
Take cookies, for example. The technology exists to disable them. Suddenly, you can't use many sites, because they require that cookies be enabled. Similarly, if the OS allows you to disable CPRM copy control, a small loader can just say "hey, this program is on a CPRM-protected media! you're fucked! here's how to enable CPRM..."
It's infuriating, really. This "optional" gambit is just another attempt to force us to pay for technology that adds no value.
double talk (Score:5)
i don't see how either statement can be true. protecting copyright by restricting the usage of blank media DIRECTLY interferes with what an end user expects to be able to do with said blank media. and hiding it under a blanket like "the plan isn't JUST about copy protection, but also about enhancing security" is an obvious and sad marketing effort to try to find some credibile partner function for copy protection.
now, i know the average consumer isn't the best educated person in the world, but do they really expect computer users to fall for this plan?