Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft Your Rights Online

Microsoft-Sony Plan: A Media-Rights Ploy? 127

Posted by timothy from the just-sign-here-and-here-and-here-and-here dept.
sk8rboi writes "Missing in Wed.'s (CNet) reports about the Digital Home Working Group (DHWG) effort from âoeMicrosoft and Sony to make sure DVD players and cell phones can communicate with each other over a home wireless networkâ is the real reason for the work--it's a DRM (digital rights management) play in disguise. Look at it logically. Why would an industry alliance need to define a standard to share an MP3 file between a smart phone and a PC? According to EmbeddedWatch, the answer is, it wouldnâ(TM)t. The file can already be shared via wireless email or WiFi. And both can read the file, since both support MP3. Consumer-electronics systems and computers can already interchange all sorts of files. But what they canâ(TM)t do--and what companies like Microsoft and Sony wish they could--is regulate the transfer of such files (aka block them if theyâ(TM)ve been downloaded for free from KaZaa). (DHWG, by the way, is actually led by Intel.)"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft-Sony Plan: A Media-Rights Ploy? More

Microsoft-Sony Plan: A Media-Rights Ploy?

Comments Filter:

  • I don't see why (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 21, 2003 @01:33PM (#6262313)
    Microsoft would do anything with mp3 more than is necessary. They'd much rather have people using their WMA format.

    • You answered your own question (Score:5, Insightful)

      by no reason to be here ( 218628 ) on Saturday June 21, 2003 @01:40PM (#6262355) Homepage
      [I don't see why] Microsoft would do anything with mp3 more than is necessary. They'd much rather have people using their WMA format.

      exactly.

      anything that makes MP3 less convenient for people in M$'s mind is a good thing. time to start pushing ogg to your friends and neighbors.

    • Re:I don't see why (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Talez ( 468021 )
      Thats good because the standard allows consumers to "access and share digital content" which presumably includes WMA along with MP3 and probably AAC.

      The reason I think Microsoft is involved is because of one thing. If theres a definate standard it allows Microsoft to easily build support into its OS or Media Player of the month. Look at the Camera and Scanner wizard found in Windows XP and tell me with a straight face that Microsoft isn't planning some easy to use Wireless Media Wizard.

  • wrong (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cristofer8 ( 550610 ) on Saturday June 21, 2003 @01:35PM (#6262319) Homepage
    I disagree. It's not just for smartphones, but a way for you dvd player to talk to you pc, which, currently, it can't. Granted, it's more than likely that whatever scheme they come up with will have DRM (sony is an riaa member after all), but I don't necessarily think that the driving point is to add drm to already existing standards.
    • Regardless, we can be assured that DRM will be added to this.

    • Re:wrong (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Phishpin ( 640483 )
      I don't want my DVD player to talk to my PC. I want to put a disk in and watch the movie without having to boot whichever box is connected to the player.

      I also want a dedidated device for my remote control. If I lose my cell, I still want to be able to change channels. If I lose my remote, I still want to be able to make calls.

      I'm not saying that communication between devices that would really benefit shouldn't be done. But what benefit do I get from hooking the DVD player and PC together?

      I think that
    • RIAA member and involved with the MPAA if I recall. But in reality, I like ALOT more of what the MPAA has in mind than whan RIAA has in mind, theres hope for the MPAA yet....RIAA however is lost to us.
    • If my DVD player starts talking to anyone or anything, I am going straight to my shrink to have my head checked!
    • why would a DVD player need to talk to my PC ?
      I simply can't find any reason why it should and if it would need that the simplest way would be to play your DVD's from a PC anyway.

  • The more these things creep in (Score:4, Insightful)

    by fr0dicus ( 641320 ) on Saturday June 21, 2003 @01:35PM (#6262322) Journal
    The more I'll switch to alternative media. Modern music is overproduced and boring anyway.
    • The more these things creep in...the more they look like vinyl.

      speaking of which.... no one was crying and whining about "rights managements" when music was sold on vinyl.

      back in the day when vinyl LPs could only be played on "record players" - and file sharing was loaning your copy of dark side of the moon to your friend who just bought a new tape deck - music was cheap and good.

      no one was pissing in their beer complaining that they couldn't press their own LPs.

      no one was whining that making imperf

      • speaking of which.... no one was crying and whining about "rights managements" when music was sold on vinyl.

        You must've missed the whining and complaining from the recording industry about how home taping was going to destroy the record business. Thats why dual tape decks were expensive and difficult to come by even in the mid 80s.

        Just an FYI, this was essentially the same argument mouthed by the movie industry when they believed that VCRs were going to destroy them as well.
      • ... crackle pop woooowooow ..... no thanks!

  • wireless? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 21, 2003 @01:37PM (#6262334)
    Home hacking is going to be real fun. Now it's me who has the remote :D
    • isn't gate's house totally automated?

      i bet it would be fun to make his multimillion dollar whatever turn into poltergeist meets pee wee's playhouse

  • You can leave junk like Kazaa out of this (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sdo1 ( 213835 ) * on Saturday June 21, 2003 @01:39PM (#6262354) Journal
    aka block them if theyâ(TM)ve been downloaded for free from KaZaa

    You know, even bring up Kazaa and the like only hurts the cause because (and I don't think anyone will dispute this) the vast majority of the files available on Kazaa and the like are copyrighted.

    The better tact would be to say "even if they've been downloaded from any of the hundreds of free (or pay) and legal sources of .mp3's all over net" or "if they've been ripped from CDs that you bought."

    This isn't about being able to share content downloaded from Kazaa. Oh boo-hoo, you can't play the copyrighted song that you didn't buy. The much bigger problem is the content that I paid for, was actually free, or that I have fair use rights to play. If DRM gets in the way of that, then's when I get angry.

    -S

    • I just listen to oldskool tunes on 12" vinyl or dubplate.

      I just dread the day when the RIAA pops out of its mouth (after its long excursion up its ass) and introduces ARM (Analogue Rights Management) That will probably be the day I go Postal.

    • Re:You can leave junk like Kazaa out of this (Score:4, Insightful)

      by moncyb ( 456490 ) on Saturday June 21, 2003 @05:29PM (#6263495) Journal

      While we're being nitpicky, I have plenty of audio files (ogg/wav/flac, not mp3. As if it makes a difference) which I never downloaded (or ripped from a CD). Nor are the copyrights owned by the RIAA--unless you think they own the birds outside my window...

      For that matter, just because a file is on Kazaa doesn't mean it's illegal RIAA child pr0n music. Kazaa isn't any different (in terms of what files will work on it) than the web, Usenet, M$'s file sharing, NFS, or any other systems which will send files across a network. Only idiots who believe the RIAA's propaganda think this.

      • For that matter, just because a file is on Kazaa doesn't mean it's illegal

        Did you even read what I wrote? I never said that. But you can't possibly deny that that the vast majority of files available on Kazaa are "illegal" (illegal, by the definition I'm using here, are files where the copyright holder does not necessarily want them sahred). It's just that crying "waaah... I don't want DRM on this file I downloaded off of Kazaa" isn't anywhere near as convincing an argument as mentioning how DRM might

        • Yeah, I read what you wrote. It was obviously with the assumption all files on Kazaa must be illegal, so Kazaa should be illegal. Similar things could be said about the VCR. A lot of people use them to copy movies too. Would you like it if someone called you a criminal because you have a VCR? Just insert your favorite brand of VCR where you wrote "Kazaa", and you'll see how stupid it is.

          This is exactly why legitimate uses have stayed away from P2P systems. Too many idiots lumping everyone into the same gr

          • It was obviously with the assumption all files on Kazaa must be illegal, so Kazaa should be illegal.

            You're REALLY reaching. Stop putting words in my mouth. I never said such things. But, Kazaa has (in the public eye) a rather negative connotation as far as sharing of copyrighted files. So if you'll go back and read the original article it said "But what they canâ(TM)t do--and what companies like Microsoft and Sony wish they could--is regulate the transfer of such files (aka block them if they

      • Kazaa isn't any different (in terms of what files will work on it) than the web, Usenet, M$'s file sharing, NFS, or any other systems which will send files across a network.

        Yes, but if I want to put something legal out on the net, Kazaa is an inefficent, unreliable way to do so. With rare exceptions, placing them on the web makes them easier to find and reliably findable, no matter where you and the searcher are on the net. The biggest use for Kazaa is for stuff that would quickly get you threatened with

        • Yeah, assuming you have the money to pay for a site and the huge bandwidth bills if your file becomes popular. Not everyone who publishes a file on the internet is a millionare.

          • Not everyone who publishes a file on the internet is a millionare.

            Not everyone who publishes a file on the Web is a millionare, either. Unless you're uploading large files (and I don't mean legal software, as there's many places to upload that), there's free sites for that. Perhaps Kazaa is an effective site to upload home-grown music, but if you don't have that website, no one will ever know about it, and if you don't have the songs on your website, half your audience will never listen.

  • I dont get it... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by angst7 ( 62954 ) on Saturday June 21, 2003 @01:43PM (#6262376) Homepage
    At the risk of sounding like I've missed the clue-train. Can someone please remind me of why I want to use a smart-phone (whatever that is) to move my mp3s around? I pretty much use my cell phone for, you know, calling people.

    ---
    Jedimom.com [jedimom.com], that not-so-fresh feeling.
    • "Let me put you on hold a minute, Mom..."

      *click*

      "SMACK MY BITCH UP! SMACK MY BITCH UP!"

      I want one.
    • At the risk of sounding like I've missed the clue-train. Can someone please remind me of why I want to use a smart-phone (whatever that is) to move my mp3s around? I pretty much use my cell phone for, you know, calling people.

      You may not see the need of it, but a cellphone (smartphone or not) is a kind of technology with which people is already friendly. A normal PDA isn't, is still a stranger in that respect.

      But you wouldn't use it only to move mp3s, but to complement your PC capabilities.

      The other

    • Choo choo!? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by bj8rn ( 583532 ) on Saturday June 21, 2003 @02:21PM (#6262581)
      The article says nothing about using your smartphone to move your mp3's around (CNet doesn't mention mp3's at all). It says something about letting your smartphone communicate with your computer (or DVD-player, toaster, whatever). Maybe you can record your phonecalls and easily transfer them to the computer this way?
      • This is scary -_-;

        Imagine somebody recording your phonecall and posting it on the web to make the fool out of you... suddenly 12yro's phone pranks and blackmail got a brand new sense -_-;

        Also...
        Imagine a cluster of perverts posting directly on bbs the pics they snatch [mainichi.co.jp] from showers, toilets...

        "Hey, mom! It's you on Internet!"
        "Oh my god! That's my company changing room!"

        If I was Intel PR I would call this "Project Pandora"... a good nickname for the project, along of the lines of "Palladium" for M

      • Or maybe it's a way for them to sell you a dvd player and smart phone that work together to scream blody murder and phone home when ever you play content the devices flag as unpaid for or what ever lame reason they want to claim your doing wrong by them this time.
    • You might not want to use your smart-phone-thingie to _move_ your mp3s around, but if you're around the house or at a job in a situation where you'd want music, why not stream it? It's like combining the walkie-talkies and cell phones, and like putting a contact list on your mp3 player.

  • I hate the idea of DRM I can't control, but... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by chundo ( 587998 ) <jeremy@jongs m a . org> on Saturday June 21, 2003 @01:43PM (#6262380)
    ...the EmbeddedWatch article is just a little paranoid. While I have no doubt that the companies with interest in this group wish to push DRM technologies, there is a second very legitimate reason to have such a group. And it's spelled out very clearly in the CNet article - working together to create communication standards. EmbeddedWatch shouts, "Just use Wi-Fi!". But how did WiFi come to be popular? Only after millions of dollars in wasted R&D for other technologies that didn't pan out (HomeRF is mentioned). This group will allow companies to communicate during the R&D phase, and ideally agree on a standard before investing millions of dollars in incompatible (and competing) ones. Be skeptical if you want, but don't cry wolf and immediately delcare the entire purpose of the group to subversively destroy our media rights.

    -j
    • I think you may be missing a big link here.

      1. Anyone can call your cell phone.

      2. If your cell phone is a computer without a firewall then they can access your phone without permission via a handy EULA.

      3. Via the latest tech (DVD/PC/Phone connections) They just hop to your DVD player, check your playlist, check your computer (as WinXP has been building a nice little "possible copyright infringement list" of items played.) get the list..

      4. Send the list back to MS, SONY, Intel (got an overclocked CPU?), M
      • And it's also highly illegal without a search warrant, and thus either 1) subject to criminal prosecution if done by corporate entities, or 2) inadmissable in a court of law if done by law enforcement. Anything else is like saying trespassing isn't illegal if you don't lock your door. Any EULA that specifically allows this type of action won't stand up in court, not to mention that once the ACLU finds out about it, they'll raise such a racket that the PR will force any company advocating the said EULA wil

  • This season's slashdot fashion news... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Realistic_Dragon ( 655151 ) on Saturday June 21, 2003 @01:50PM (#6262412) Homepage
    Tin foil hats are in, gentoo tshirts are in, microsoft tshirts are out.

    At least Microsoft won't have to worry about running out at Comdex ;o)
  • While Microsoft, which makes etheral software...

    Umm... what is "etheral" software? Did the article mean to say "ethereal"? If so, I still don't understand. Whether you like it/them or not, Microsoft's software products do, um, tangible things.

    Perhaps the author meant to use the word ethereal as applied to software in general not being a physical product such as phones and access points and DVD players?

    • Whether you like it/them or not, Microsoft's software products do, um, tangible things.

      I'm not sure MS's products do tangible things, why is it when I sneeze around any computer running MS ME that it crashes. This is INTANGABLE to my brain that a OS could be made so poorly that if i disrupt the speed of the air around the computer with a sneeze, it crashes. Or maybe it doesn't like me, I'm bad mojo or something.

  • ploy? (Score:5, Funny)

    by chunkwhite86 ( 593696 ) on Saturday June 21, 2003 @01:57PM (#6262452)
    Ploy shmoy. These guys are our friends arent they?? They are just trying to help us by giving us new and innovative technology!! This is so wonderful!


    *ARGH!* Stop throwing things at me! *OUCH!* I was just joking, *ACK!* I swear!

  • With i-link and hpnp... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rusty0101 ( 565565 ) on Saturday June 21, 2003 @01:57PM (#6262453) Homepage Journal
    I would suspect that Sony and Microsoft both think they have interconnectivity options available. The question really should be what advantage will either, or both see as a result of this.

    Sony is a very divers company, with quite a bit of infighting. The Music side of the business (which may be hemoraging money shortly) hates the idea of any of the other product lines (mostly hardware) having the capability of handling MP3 files in any form.

    Something tells me that most of the MD players out there have a firmware update waiting in the wings that will turn on their ability to play MP3 files, significantly boosting the marketability of the player. (Do you know of a lot of MP3 players of any capacity that will run continuously for 50+ hours on a single AA battery?)

    Since I have not been actively looking for a DVD player lately, I do not know if they are meeting the market demands of playing CD's with MP3 files on them. With the exception of the $300 devices, I am not sure that there are many competitors making players without this feature.

    One of the options that Sony could be doing with their DVD players is something HP and others have been doing with stand-alone media centers. It is trivial to implement on a PS2 with the Linux kit, but would be cheaper to implement in an otherwise stand alone dvd player. All the hardware is there to play MP3, almost all Sony media devices have i-link capability so there should be nothing preventing the dvd player from streaming audio from a pc, or with a QNX os, be able to mount shared media folders and run slideshows while playing music, or possibly play video. (Though to play Divx/mpeg4 might be beyond the standard hardware in a dvd player.

    From what I have seen as the capabilities of Sony H/W engineers, I strongly suspect that the submitter is correct, this is a ploy to get DRM distributed within the house.

    Might be a pain to go to the store, pick up a copy of MIIB only to find out that fan site for ST-V that you are hosting on your home system disallows you from watching the movie. (as an example)

    Then again, this is my observations and thoughts.

    -Rusty
    • All the hardware is there to play MP3, almost all Sony media devices have i-link capability so there should be nothing preventing the dvd player from streaming audio from a pc, or with a QNX os, be able to mount shared media folders and run slideshows while playing music, or possibly play video.

      iLink (aka IEEE-1394) is a layer 0 protocol. How can it be used directly for "streaming audio from a pc, or with a QNX os, be able to mount shared media folders and run slideshows while playing music, or possib

      • i-link is capable of being used as a network transport, which USB does not natively support. You can currently link up two mac laptops via firewire and no other network interfaces, and exchange data/mount folders, etc. In other words the capability is there.

        It may require more work to be implemented, but I suspect that you could link an iBook to a Vaio via the respective firewire iLInk interfaces. (Though not having tried this, I don't know.)

        -Rusty
        • You can currently link up two mac laptops via firewire and no other network interfaces, and exchange data/mount folders, etc. In other words the capability is there.

          But I assume iLink only provides the physical connection, the "exchange data/mount folders, etc." stuff is handled by higher-level protocols (AppleTalk?). To make your stereo browse folders and stream MP3 files from your PC, you would need such higher-level protocols too.

          OTOH, I'm wondering whether there are technical reasons why comp

    • Since I have not been actively looking for a DVD player lately, I do not know if they are meeting the market demands of playing CD's with MP3 files on them. With the exception of the $300 devices, I am not sure that there are many competitors making players without this feature.

      My cheapo sub $100(US) Koss A/V DVD player has this feature. Bought it a few months ago. It even has a little dialog box to browse the files. Not very well designed, but it seems to work.

      DVDs need the hardware decoder chips anywa

    • First, Sony already has an MP3 ready MiniDisc player. Check it out [crutchfield.com].

      But unfortunatly all Sony portable "mp3 players" are not really MP3 players. They all require you to re-encode the files into Sony's proprietary, DRM locked format, ATRAC3. And you have to use their crappy software too. And files must be checked in and checked out so you can't have them on more than one device at a time.
      No thanks, Sony.

  • "Why would an industry alliance need to define a standard to share an MP3 file between a smart phone and a PC?"

    Well how about for automatic media file discovery and interoperability between appliances? Or should all interop development be left for Apple while the rest of us go for closed source file transfer utilities and closed protocols that probably aren't supported on ones favourite OS?
    • >>hy would an industry alliance need to define a standard to share an MP3?
      Well how about for automatic media file discovery and interoperability between appliances?

      At the time of writing this comment, so far yours is the only one that seems to understand what is being discussed. To elaborate on the point:

      OK, I have an MP3 file sitting on my hard disc. Your connecting device needs to know:

      1. That another device is available which understands the same protocol
      2. That the other device contains music
      3. Th

  • The most interesting part of the article... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ihatesco ( 682485 ) on Saturday June 21, 2003 @02:01PM (#6262469)
    is this image [embeddedwatch.com]

    If I am not mistaken, barring the device discovery and control part, everything is already known, has a widely known standard, and is already interoperable. With the exception of DRM which is marked as "Proprietary/Vertical". Will that mean that Sony DRM stuff (which will work on a Montavista Linux Based platform [lwn.net] will not be displayed on my Longhorn PC? That's crazy.

    And what if this become a "standard" like Motif or CDE? (Yeah, a bloated, cumbersome standard, that Micrsoft will replace with something suited for her whims instead)

    And free content will be able to circulate between one system and the other? Oh, yeah...

    I can envision the chaos that will occur when I will be able to rip the movies from one of the n competing DRM technologies.

    Everyone will be posting torrents on /, (slashcomma) with downloads to the "easy-do-it-all-crack-o-rama" program, and then will be out renting DRM "X" standard technology in order to spread the content between pcs, cellphones, and their taiwanese blueray players.

    + + + +
    HTTP enabled phone. Why I suddenly foresee http://4g.goatse.cx (don't follow that link even if it doesn't work) for the future cellphones?

  • things i'd love (Score:5, Interesting)

    by zakezuke ( 229119 ) on Saturday June 21, 2003 @02:02PM (#6262479)
    I'd love it if my DVD player had on it WiFi or ethernet. I already have cat5 runs and would enjoy output of my computer in the form of media files on my TV, which I already enjoy over analog cable. This in a way makes sence, the fact that a DVD player is just a glorified mpeg decoder, it would be the next logical step having it act as essentally a networked video card. WiFi ability would just be icing on the cake in this sorta setup.

    And it's also not like people like my self wouldn't enjoy this ability, which makes a fair amount of sence, to extend to mobile phones and PDAs. It seems the next logical step in home entertainment, being able for your friend to come over to your pad and share his snapshots directly from their handheld device directly to your TV. Or even a .mp3 file.

    These things make sence and are very marketable ideas. Hell, i'd buy a networkable DVD player.

    But I think perhaps with the shadow of DRM that we should reserve implementations of these technologies to OSS. It's already been demonstrated by microsoft they are experimenting with "phone home for authorization" technologies and this just has far too much bad mojo. The last thing we need are remote enforcable EULAs.

  • Wolfe paranoid? Say it ain't so! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Keith Russell ( 4440 ) on Saturday June 21, 2003 @02:09PM (#6262517) Journal

    Alexander Wolfe's EmbeddedWatch.com has just dropped somewhere below the Inquirer on the credibility scale. First, Wolfe claims that a few piddly Microsoft patents cover the entirety of digital video-on-demand. [slashdot.org] Now, he sees Microsoft and Sony in the same working group, and concludes that it must be a DRM scheme that will retroactively lock down every file on your system.

    Note to Timothy: You are being TROLLED! For free publicity, apparently. How else could you explain this block at the top of EmbeddedWatch's front page?

    Don't forget to read "Microsoft gets video-on-demand patent", our still-hot story, which has over 100,000 hits and links on Microsoft-Watch and Slashdot.

  • DRM is ok by me (Score:4, Insightful)

    by pstreck ( 558593 ) * on Saturday June 21, 2003 @02:10PM (#6262521)

    First off I'd like to make a point to say that I support DRM. I support it if it keeps people from doing something illegal, ie. downloading movies, music and software for that matter that is copyrighted without paying for it. There is nothing wrong with that. The only problem I do have with DRM is if it prevents me from using the media that I have acquired legally, that pisses me off.

    Next, we do need a standard so that mulitple devices can talk to one another over a wired or wireless network to share media files. You call e-mail a way to do this. Sure it works, but it's cumbersome and barbaric. What I want is the abillity to turn on my set top box connect to my pc, and stream some music to the whole house. Anyways, the point is that we do need proper protocols for this kind of thing, sometimes I think people scream wolf way to much.

    • Re:DRM is ok by me (Score:3, Insightful)

      by zakezuke ( 229119 )
      The thing about DRM I do not support is that whole need a computer based authorization in order to play media. What is to stop a media giant from changing the terms on our media. Before you say it can't be done, look at all the annoyance with SCO and their attempt to revoke their contracts. With DRM a company like SCO would have the power to shut off access to material we bought in good faith.

      Good gawd, now i'm starting to understand why people like physical books, hard to revoke a license on a book.

      As

    • Re:DRM is ok by me (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      "we do need a standard so that mulitple devices can talk to one another over a wired or wirel....."

      We already have them, they are called cat 5 and speaker wire.

      Run some cat five from your main pc to a slave pc running linux sitting on top of your reciever.

      Run cat 5 where-ever else you need it as well. Set up unix boxes as clients on the ends of all those wires.

      Note that: Unix is a very powerful OS for sharing files, cat 5 is very reliable and well thought out at this point, stereos in some sense have p

    • Re:DRM is ok by me (Score:4, Interesting)

      by jorlando ( 145683 ) on Saturday June 21, 2003 @03:50PM (#6263072)
      "The only problem I do have with DRM is if it prevents me from using the media that I have acquired legally, that pisses me off."

      And who said that part is of concern when some company starts to draw a DRM specification? Remember DIVX (the DVD-like standard from Circuit City, not the decoder)? Pay 10 to watch a movie for 48 hours, 30 to own it and watch ONLY in your DIVX player (good, heh? you own it but can't take it to your friends house to watch with them... just like your VHS, records and CD... ops... none are like this? well... bad for YOU)

      And the best part that was never addressed... and when I buy a new DIVX player? What happens? Well.. YOUR problem...

      Nobody is thinking in fair use or consumer rights... as a consumer you are either a drone that must always buy new media, no matter what crap is up in the moment, no matter if you have a job or not... if you don't buy you are a thief, since you don't buy music, or movies you must be thieving it... with some kind of p2p... you are not allowed not to buy, since it would lead to a sales decrease, and sales decrease only happens due thieves using some scheme to steal the music.

      I was looking the website of the Brazilian equivalent of RIAA and guess what they discovered?

      Every region of the world that CD sales decreased are pirate ridden! Latin America had a decrease of 20% in the last five years... who's the culprit? pirates! internet and p2p! vevermind that the region is going down the hole... 20% of unemployement rate in Brazil, that or more in Argentina, Venezuela 30%... and the list goes on... not a single moron in these RIAA-like institutes thought that maybe when people don't have jobs they don't buy cd's!

      England had a sales increase... due what? a good campaign on piracy and lowered prices... Japan? the same... hmmmm maybe the higher prices have something with lower sales? We had campaigns against piracy all over the world... Naahhhh... to easy! Is the fucking pirates!
    • First off I'd like to make a point to say that I support cutting people's hands off. I support it if it keeps people from doing something illegal, ie. shoplifting, or picking people's pockets. There is nothing wrong with that. The only problem I do have with cutting people's hands off is if it prevents me from playing the piano that I have acquired legally, that pisses me off.

      The only way to "enforce" DRM is to make it a crime to decrypt, as the DMCA does. However ANY method a computer uses to descramble D

  • English, do you speak it? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by blowdart ( 31458 ) on Saturday June 21, 2003 @02:14PM (#6262543) Homepage
    Microsoft and Sony to make sure DVD players and cell phones can communicate with each other over a home wireless network

    Way to go. Lets look at CNet's article. It states

    set to unveil a joint effort to make sure that their products--from computers to DVD players to cell phone

    Note this doesn't limit the communication to swapping between phones and DVDs as the article author seems to think. Note the slashdot article seems to leave out the computers part of the CNet article. Add that back in, and what do you have? A standard protocol for your home devices, computers, Pocket PCs, Palms, mobile phones, printers to swap files.

    Lets now look at the example use given in the Cnet article

    people would be able to play digital audio on their living-room stereo even though the music files themselves are stored on a computer in the den.

    Sounds useful doesn't it? Does it sound like extending DRM? Probably note, especially as Microsoft and Sony each have their own DRM technologies.

    The slashdot "article" justifies itself by pretending

    The file can already be shared via wireless email or WiFi

    Really? I don't know of a common mobile phone with WiFi, or a home stereo system, or a DVD. Strange, I don't have an email option on my stero.

    I wish you could moderate slashdot parent articles, this one is either a Troll or Flamebait. Nice lack of checking even the CNet article Timothy.

  • Or why I will allways run AMD.

  • Fair Use Rights (Score:5, Interesting)

    by chmilar ( 211243 ) on Saturday June 21, 2003 @02:27PM (#6262618)
    For me, it comes down to one thing:

    If I feel that some media or player has the potential to "rip me off" by restricting my fair use rights, I will avoid it. I don't want to pay for a song or movie, and then be restricted from using it in a reasonable fashion.

    Since all current Digital Restrictions Management schemes do not guarantee my fair use rights, I will not subscribe to any of them. I would rather "go without" the media than put up with this crap.

    • "Since all current Digital Restrictions Management schemes do not guarantee my fair use rights, I will not subscribe to any of them. I would rather "go without" the media than put up with this ...."

      Amen!! This is a good T-shirt slogan ...

      tnx.

  • DIE KARMA, DIE! (Score:1, Interesting)

    by iamdrscience ( 541136 )
    I think it's really strange that anything that promotes DRM is an evil PLOY to steal our rights. I mean, I'm just as paranoid, anti-Microsoft, zealot etc. as the next guy on Slashdot, but I mean come on, it's not like DRM is an inherently evil idea, there IS an arguement for it. I disagree with the arguement but DRM isn't nearly the proven evil of other things.

    *cue "you must me new to Slashdot" comments and moderators ignoring or modding down my comment*
    • The problem is that, right now, the Digital Restrictions Management schemes are stacked in favor of the media "owners". Most schemes restrict your rights, as the "consumer", far more than Copyright Law stipulates.

      No DRM scheme specifies any "fair use" guarantees to the consumer.

      There is no law that guarantees the consumer's fair use rights.

    • Ha, that was the other possibility, that people would just read the subject line and not the post and think "troll". I fucking hate slashdot.
    • I think the name says it all - Digital Rights Management is obvious marketing to the masses. Digital Restrictions Management is a better name.

  • this is stupid (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pair-a-noyd ( 594371 ) on Saturday June 21, 2003 @02:43PM (#6262713)
    The whole article is stupid. What the hell would my cell phone have to do with my DVD player or MP3's in my living room??

    You know, here's two things.
    1. The music that I listen to is NOT under the control of ANY of the RIAA crowd, in any shape, form or fashion. They have ZERO claim on the music I listen to, they will NEVER have claim to it or be allowed to lay claim to or control it. The artists that I listen to have sworn to that.

    2. I just ran cat5 everywhere in the house. I have a box full of my music in the computer room and it runs GnuMP3d (get it at freshmeat).
    I have an *OLD* PC in the garage running Damn Small Linux (a Knoppix knock off, get it at ibiblio) with a sound card and speakers. I can go work on stuff in the garage and browse to the page created by GnuMP3d, with a few clicks I'm listening to my favorite music as I work. A full entertainment center in my garage. I rescued the PC from a trash pile, cleaned it up and made use of it. It was free. It cost me ZIP...

    I've got some old Packard Bell desktop boxes too that lay flat. They cost me ZIP also.. I'm going to paint one black and slide it in with my AV equipment as an MP3 receiver, just like in my garage.

    And for video, I plan to pick up a used Xbox soon for about $150 and turn it into a PVR. I've already got housewide satellite and AV wires run. I can control the AV center in my living room from any room in the house.

    I want to know why I should throw all this out and replace it with M$, RIAA and MPAA approved equipment???
    • "I want to know why I should throw all this out and replace it with M$, RIAA and MPAA approved equipment???"

      Because they will be coming to get you soon ... the knowledge you have (to set up such a system) will be criminalized and new media content will be unplayable on your equipment.
  • You may know me from such educational films as "if you dont like a companies business practices, don't buy their product" and my feature film debut "Money Talks".

    Seriously though people. There are alternatives to Sony and MS, hell I can't remember the last time either company got my money....not for my OS, my TV, DVD player, head unit in my car, I don't think I own a single Sony or MS product. So I know I'M not contributing to the problem....are you? ;)
  • Shouldn't this be from the

    "I-can't-breathe-because-of-all-the-tinfoil-i'm-we aring-dept."?

  • I posted an article here about the real reason Microsoft settled with AOL/Netscape. Microsoft wants AOL to use its server software for serving TIME-Warner media content. Microsoft is getting into the media business in a big way. This could explain why they are still pouring money down the hole that is MSNBC.
  • The cold fact (warm and fuzzy for us :) that companies have to accept, is that no scheme like this can't work. Look at every other attempt at keeping a widely distributed system closed. DVDs.. CDs.. they've been trying this for ages, and will continue to fail because for it to work, a part of it will need to be in the phones. You can just open up a phone, reverse engineer the code inside, and find out how the protocol works. Remember the debacle with Sony CD protection and markers? I've never been particul
    • I Agree, but for another reason.

      For DRM to work, the DRM system has to prevent the presentation of unauthorized content.

      RIAA and their pals could downloaded every MP3 and MPG on every p2p network and every ftp site in existence (a herculean task). They could build a list therefrom of forbidden file signatures. They could require the DRM equipment to check their live database for a forbidden signature before presenting the content.

      And the next day some wiseacre with nothing better to do would create a

  • You don't get it (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ajs318 ( 655362 ) <(sd_resp2) (at) (earthshod.co.uk)> on Saturday June 21, 2003 @04:06PM (#6263132)
    ..... but you're not meant to get it.

    There already exist open data formats which could be used for ensuring interoperability. All this guff is just to promote the idea of DRM for the wrong reasons.

    Whilst I like the idea of signed source code that can only possibly have come from who it says it came from, so that I can choose if or not I want to compile it, I am less keen on the idea of other people being able to tell me what I can do with my equipment.


    Imagine that the postal service had a true monopoly on the delivery of letters and parcels. You wouldn't be allowed to slip a note through your neighbour's door: you would have to go to the post office, buy a stamp and deposit it in the box there. You wouldn't be allowed to carry a basket of food to Grandma's house: you would have to parcel it up, and if Granny missed the delivery, she would have to trek all the way to the sorting office to pick up your baking.

    If you want to buy goods from a supplier, they have to send them through the postal service, who will take your payment and ensure that the cost of the goods is passed on to the supplier. You are not allowed to get in your car or walk round to the depot and pick the goods up yourself, even if you pay cash on collection.

    Now imagine that somebody just invented a way you could send a message from almost any computer to almost any other computer. How do you imagine that the postal service would react to that?


    Well, the record companies are basically providing a delivery service for goods {in this case music} from the performer to the listener. If the listener chooses to pay neither the record companies' delivery charge, nor the cost of the goods from the supplier {performer}, the record labels regard this as stealing.

    However, it is my contention that the record companies are more concerned about their being deprived of the delivery charge than about the artist being depived of their payment {which on a CD is mere pennies}. Now we come to the crux of the matter. The artist is only missing out on pennies. I would not miss this little amount of money, so what chance is there that they will miss it?

    It's unfortunate that things have got the way they have. I could not honestly object to a scheme whereby someone downloading a music file directly paid the artist the money they were asking for -- it would almost certainly be less than the cost of a CD. But you can bet this won't be about paying the performers. The record companies will shamelessly use the image of the starving artist to justify lining their own pockets.


    If they're even still around in a few years' time, that is .....
  • Ahhh, the joys and bliss of being *ahem* older!

    Yes, I could have all sorts of DVD's, connectivity, etc. But I don't. Here's why:

    [1] I don't own a cell phone, pager, or any other wireless devices (except for the radio in my car). There is nothing in my employment or personal life that says you can contact me during off hours. This is intentional on my part EG, "Don't call me, I'll call you."

    [2] Excuse me, but the reason I am paying for the damn technology in the first place is for *my* convenience, not yo
  • Nobody seems to like the idea of Big Brother. The idea of the Government watching all its citizens wasn't palitable to the voters. But if Big Business keeps building little parts of the "Big Brother" functionality into all the items you want to buy, pretty soon you have willing purchased your way into all that control the Government wanted in the first place. The irony is that because of all the campaign contributions and lobbying, Big Business is really the Government. It's the ultimate marketing job.
  • Apple's open rendezvous seems idea for communication between diverse devices capable of many tasks. I believe iTunes can share over the service, which makes it empirically possible to implement it for MP3 sharing across a home network.
  • "Why would an industry alliance need to define a standard to share an MP3 file between a smart phone and a PC?"

    If you really have ever used any kind of smartphones, you should already know that any kind of standards are desperately needed. Just try to sync your calendar via BlueTooth between different vendor's phones, let alone do anything more sophisticated like automatically discover media files from foreign devices.

    As a sidenote, I see no reason to limit this functionality to smartphones. It would be
  • Microsoft and Sony to make sure DVD players and cell phones can communicate with each other over a home wireless network
    The technology is already there: Rendezvous [apple.com]
    It's already an open standard and is proven. Why wouldn't they use it? Simple. They each want to own your consumer experience. I for one would love a plethora of Rendezvous-enabled devices.
  • Bleah. UPnP is a bear compared to ZeroConf (aka Rendezvous).

    Why not have the DRM in the file, as people and industries care about *content* and focus on easy communications that are easy to implement?

    IIRC, including ZeroConf capabilities for a particular service is like, 5 lines in ObjC or something, but UPnP is templates and device descriptions and yadda yadda.

    You want to clamp down on what's allowed where? Put it in the content, not the media or device. You will lose on the device side (right, Mr. V-Ch
  • I just can't wait for Intel to soak up ye'ol Fritz chip and lop it on-die. Hey, I mean why go to jail for sharing MP3's and get myself violated there when I can have a bunch of hardware engineers violate me right here where I sit? Go DMCA! Onward Stalin!
  • What is even the point in using computers when we cant do what WE want with them? ixxo

Slashdot Top Deals

"When it comes to humility, I'm the greatest." -- Bullwinkle Moose

Close