Vista a Threat to Internet Freedom?

BBC columnist Bill Thompson warns readers that new DRM technology, especially that found in Vista, is damaging the freedoms that the internet was based on. "The freedom of expression that was once available to users of the Internet Protocol is being stripped away. Our freedom to play, experiment, share and seek inspiration from the creative works of others is increasingly restricted so that large companies can lock our culture down for their own profit. [...] governments and corporations around the world are making a concerted effort to dismantle the open internet and replace it with a regulated and regulable one that will allow them to impose an 'architecture of control.'"

Informal Poll

vista is a threat to

o my job
o my life
o my sanify
o my wallet
o my security

Re:Informal Poll

o my CowboyNeal

Re:Informal Poll

It's a threat to my continuing to use the Windows family of products... I'll stick with XP for a while but once I'm ready to upgrade I'm either going Mac or Linux.

Re:Informal Poll

I'm a Mac user, you might be better off looking at Linux if DRM-free-ness is what you want. Apple is as big a pusher of DRM as Microsoft. That said, it tends to be less in-your-face about it.

Re:Informal Poll

Shouldn't those be checkboxes instead of radiobuttons?

As long as there is something good...

...there will always be people that fuck it up.
It's just a matter of how long it takes them to A. Figure out that it is good and B. to figure out how they want to fuck it up.

Probably all true.

Unless you use [insert favorite Linux Distro here].

Then you'll have as much freedom as you can handle. Well, sort of.

Re:Probably all true.

How about this quote from Marcus Matthias, product manager of Windows Digital Media at Microsoft:

"Any device--whether it be a PC or consumer electronic device--will need to ensure compliance with the specified policies otherwise they risk being unable to access the next-gen DVD content. Clearly we think that offering next-gen DVD content on the PC is much preferable to having the PC excluded from accessing this premium content,"

Vista is stealing the next generation of hardware from us.

Re:Probably all true.

or are they painting themselves into a corner ?

or are they -

- the only Port in a Storm?

- A Breathe of Fresh Air? A Site for Sore Eyes? Breeches of Security?

- Looking a Gift Horse in the Mouth?

- Like putting on a Ferrari?

- Like a Fish Needs a Bicycle?

Re:Probably all true.

Vista is stealing the next generation of hardware from us.

Doubtful, I for one, in my experience testing Vista, was not inspired. I was so not inspired, in fact, that I tried to go back to windows XP only to find OEMs no longer include working system reinstall disks, and that essentially if I want to get my system back to the way it was I have to pay the Gateway mafia their payola or download an illegal version of Windows and put my legal key in. My response is that I'm sick of paying for dinner and being served cowshit, while they give the bums eating out of the garbage my meal. If I was running pirated Windows to begin with, I would've never had a problem. My problem, essentially, is attempting to buy a Windows PC with Windows installed and think I actually have the ability to run the OS and recover it should I have any errors or difficulties.

I'm going to make sure what I buy from now on is Linux compatible. I've had enough of this "you don't really own anything" culture. DRM will lose out once customers finally realize how much they are being screwed by the big houses. And it won't take that long for that to happen, because as the DRM gets more complicated, the amount of technical difficulties with it will increase, and people will begin to wonder why HD-DVD doesn't work any better than DVD and won't work on anything, while their DVDs will. Resulting in nobody buying into it.

Computing has been free for far too long and there are too many clever hackers involved for this crap to go down now. We've become too smart, and now we'll just move around instead. I don't give a shit if I can't watch HD-DVDs. I won't. I'd rather have freedom than a hi-def version of Speed II: Bladder Control.

Re:Probably all true.

DRM will lose out once customers finally realize how much they are being screwed by the big houses.

Unfortunately, I'm afraid you're expecting way too much of users. They'll go "bah, who cares, it's just a computer" like they do about everything else and just buy the new version of whatever crap they're expected to buy.

And they'll keep on getting searched at airports, being scared of tshirts, believing whatever imaginary threats are shown on TV and so on. Just like they're supposed to.

I just wish I was wrong...

Re:Legal Key invalid...

I have to pay the Gateway mafia their payola or download an illegal version of Windows and put my legal key in.

With DRM what you expect and what you get may not be the same. I recall seeing some discussion of the Legal XP key becomming invalidated in the Vista upgrade process.

A quick Google search brings up gems like "Vista will invalidate your XP key (so you won't be able to set up a dual-boot option nor will you be able to use that version of XP on another machine). Not only that, but if you ever uninstall Vista, you won't be able to fall back on your copy of XP anymore. Nice"

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/software/upgrade-to-vis ta-lose-your-xp-key-232647.php [gizmodo.com]

Single vendor copy protected software may not provide you the privilages you expected to recieve when you bought it.

Any questions?

Re:Probably all true.

Unless you use [insert favorite Linux Distro here].

Then you'll have as much freedom as you can handle. Well, sort of.

Dons tinfoil hat

How long before some lobbyist convinces the government to make it mandatory to use an *AA approved protocol/operating system which can be used to ensure that their IP 'rights' aren't being violated?? In which case, MS (or, one or two other *AA licensees) will become the gatekeeper(s) of all data on the internet?

When they outlaw unencumbered internet protocols and operating systems, only criminals will be running them.

Doffs tinfoil hat

While I don't think that the above is (imminently) likely, it certainly seems to be the direction regulation is moving to. If you can't convince the *AAs/government/terrorist police that you're above board, your activities are to be shut down until such time ad you can prove that you conform to their expectations.

And, since the *AA's seem to be able to push through any law they can afford (which then gets pushed down the throats of the rest of the world), I'm afraid the paranoid scenario seems more and more probable.

Cheers

Re:Probably all true.

Actually that is exactly what they tried with PERFORM Act. Greed knows no bounds.

Not only that, but they exhumed that bill [arstechnica.com] and are trying again.

Get to the Root of the Problem

The root of the problem is a corporate mentality that users don't have any rights. So they have something real cutesy called "Digital Rights Management" because, hey let's face it, businesses want to define a users rights. Why do you think EULA's and TOS's are so damn long and obfuscated?

Why is Vista a threat to our freedom? Because it's laden with DRM. Why is it laden with DRM? Because they feel pressure to use DRM so users can't spread media. Why do they feel this pressure? Because huge organizations full of lawyers threaten people everyday with lawsuits, they don't want to be a target of those lawsuits.

Now, I know that Vista will soon be the number one used operating system. Will it be Vista's fault that users are giving up their rights? Yes. Will it be Microsoft's fault for giving in to fears and not fighting for our rights? Yes, but no more so than the DRM that Apple puts on its iTMS. Will it be the RIAA/MPAA/other lawyer's faults for putting this fear into the corporate mentality of how to run a successful business? Most definitely.

Stop complaining about each piece of software that comes out with restricted rights attached to it and hit the root of the issue: legions of lawyers lobbying for unbelievable laws on copyrights and enough money to strong arm cases against any defendant.

The only part of this article worth pointing out (that I didn't really read) is that Microsoft is one of the few companies with the cash to fight back. But instead, they're selling the limitation of rights on their OS as a feature.

...the network tends towards liberal values just as a flower turns toward the sun

That's not a good analogy, nature is both beautiful and ugly. Natural trends are not always the best, for instance, what if I said that "the network tends towards liberal values just as a bull tends to rape any female cow next to him." Doesn't sound so enticing, does it? If you're going to use an analogy, please use one that sheds light or meaning on the situation. Your quote underneath your picture just sounds like you smoked enough dope to spew hippie peace love crap.

Re:Get to the Root of the Problem

You operate under the illusion that producing a product obligates one to income.

Not so. Imagine your product is dirt. Dirt is readily available, no one is ready to pay for small amounts of innocuous dirt. However, if you provide convenient, small, enhanced packages of dirt you will have a market e.g., Miracle-Gro. Perhaps this isn't your preference, perhaps you would like to provide extremely large amounts of dirt to distributors who sell smaller increments of enhanced dirt. Like dump trucks of topsoil for subdivisions.

There are many business models for seemingly ubiquitous resources. The problem with the RIAA and MPAA is that they have a product that may become more common than dirt but they are unwilling to change their business model to compensate. Therefore they must sponsor insane laws to enforce broken models that have already failed and will fail again.

Re:Get to the Root of the Problem

The problem with the RIAA and MPAA is that they have a product that may become more common than dirt...

And almost as enjoyable to consume.

An EXCELLENT analogy!!

once someone gets a single complete package of that "enhanced dirt," they are able to make an infinite number of duplicates of it at nearly zero incremental cost.

You hit it right on the spot. That's one of the best analogies for digital copying there is. Because, what is it exactly that makes "enhanced dirt" different from any other kind of valueless dirt? Answer: the organic matter it contains. Once you get a small sample of this "enhanced dirt" you can make a culture of whatever is the living matter in it that makes it so special.

Living matter replicates itself endlessly, just like digital data. Give me one sample of a fungus or bacteria and I can make an indefinite number of copies at a very small incremental cost. And that's the reason why the corporation lobbyists have pushed for regulations that make living things patentable. There are plants, animals, bacteria, fungi, etc, that have existed for thousands or maybe millions of years, yet they are patentable by the first corporation that fills a claim. How's that for prior art???

Industry can't "die" as long as there's a market.

There are a number of business models existing on unsustainable business models; in short, they rely on selling a piece of information many times over, in order to stay afloat, when the nature of information is inherently nonconservative. It's only been the case historically that such business models were feasible, because of the difficulty in losslessly copying information. As this is no longer the case, it is also no long really feasible to make money by selling a plastic disc full of bits, at a price that exceeds both the marginal cost of the bits, and of the disc.

However, this doesn't mean that there isn't a market for entertainment. There is, has always been, and will always be, a vast market for entertainment of all forms. So it's idiotic to assume that no DRM means the death of the movie, music, or software industries. Those industries will continue, as long as a market for their products exists -- however, they will have to find new business models that don't rely on pretending that information is aspirin tablets, can can be turned out in factories and sold, over and over and over again.

The market for entertainment is probably quite inflated right now; I suspect that during this switch of business models, to something that's more sustainable and doesn't require draconian consumer restrictions, that the size of the movie industry, in particular, would contract dramatically. But that's the way of things -- a huge studio empire isn't required to produce a good film, and thus there's a lot of redundant overhead there, which needs to go. This change sucks if you make your living right now as a middleman in a movie studio, but it probably sucked being a buggy-whip manufacturer, too.

You cannot destroy the entirety of the entertainment industry, so long as there are people with free time and disposable income, who want to be entertained. Unfortunately, the entertainment industry as we know it today has grown fat and lazy; it has resisted change at every opportunity, even when such change has eventually benefited it (e.g. VCRs, online music sales). Either it will refuse to change, and go down with its failing business model, or it will stop fighting the inevitable, and rethink how entertainment is produced and sold. Either way, people will still be entertained.

Culture is a commodity

According to the thought experiment of The Tragedy of the Commons, any resource that is not owned will be misused. For the sake of our culture, we need to give it away to a large corporation that can care for it properly. It's the capitalist thing to do. You aren't a communist terrorist jihadist, are you?

If you aren't willing to give your culture away to a big company, then buy back whatever little pieces of it they want to dole out, then you hate capitalism, the free market, and America. Probably Mom and apple pie, too.

Re:Culture is a commodity

I know I am going against the groupthink here and will be modded accordingly, but how are you "giving" the culture to the company that created a movie/song/whatever? If you want to, you create the culture and give it away. If you don't want to or cannot, then don't complain that the culture is being "stolen". The world does not exist to entertain you, I know that is hard to swallow, but it is true. If you don't like the MPAA or RIAA then go outside to do something, read one of the huge number of public domain books, actually talk to other human beings instead of being glued to the screen cursing the same MPAA who finances the movies you like.

Re:Culture is a commodity

I know I am going against the groupthink here and will be modded accordingly, but how are you "giving" the culture to the company that created a movie/song/whatever?

For the most part the studios and artists that create works do not retain the copyright for those works because it is the distribution channels that have been taken over by monopolists and cartels. To equate the person who owns the copyright with the creator of a work is misguided. Do you know how much an average musician makes from the copyright on their songs? Less than nothing. In exchange for making songs and transferring the copyright to a label, most musicians sign a contract that puts them in debt. It is the only way to get their music widely distributed. Most of them make money selling trademarked t-shirts, and doing live performances. If copyright disappeared tomorrow most musicians would probably make more money.

If you want to, you create the culture and give it away.

Yeah, and have basically no chance of reaching the mainstream audience.

The world does not exist to entertain you, I know that is hard to swallow, but it is true. If you don't like the MPAA or RIAA then go outside to do something, read one of the huge number of public domain books, actually talk to other human beings instead of being glued to the screen cursing the same MPAA who finances the movies you like.

Books are an interesting example. Do you know how many books make a profit after the first 3 years? Less than 1%. If my grandmother wrote a book 40 years ago and died 20 years ago, the chances are the copyright for that book would be owned by a publishing house who would intentionally bury it, so that the work could not be freely printed and it did not compete with current offerings. The vast majority of books, TV shows, and songs are intentionally being held by companies who do not offer them for sale, effectively erasing them from public. You mention public domain books, but most books written since the 70s will likely never, ever enter the public domain and of those that do, most will be DRM'd in some way so no usable copy may ever exist.

Some of those are probably the greatest works of literature of those decades, but were too progressive for their time and were tossed in a bin. What is copyright and why does it exist? My natural human right to free speech means that if you sing a song and I hear it, I have the right to sing that song too. Copyright is an artificial restriction on that right, designed to motivate the creation and archival of more works. If the works are no longer archived and no one can see or read them and they are not for sale so no additional revenue is motivating the author's to create, why are works still copyrighted? What is the justification for restricting my free speech?

Anyone who takes the time to see how many and what artistic works are vanishing, the last copies rotting away, becomes concerned about the issue. Our artistic heritage is being buried for about 1% increase in profit. We need reform and that reform should take DRM into account.

But You Can't Totally Blame M$ For This.....

... Because it's the MPAA and RIAA that imposed this DRM bulls**t on them. I'm not saying that they're blameless. What I am saying is they need the support of the music and movie industry to "embrace and extend."

Re:But You Can't Totally Blame M$ For This.....

... Because it's the MPAA and RIAA that imposed this DRM bulls**t on them. I'm not saying that they're blameless. What I am saying is they need the support of the music and movie industry to "embrace and extend."

On the contrary. Microsoft decided that they would implement the DRM because they believed it was necessary to get the media industry onboard.

Thing is, if neither Microsoft nor Apple had gone the DRM route, they would still get on board, because the alternative is to get NO money from people downloading with their media online. With or without DRM, getting online gives them a chance to make a profit, as opposed to not getting online, and having no chance.

If anything I am more angry at Microsoft for knowingly and intentionally helping the MPAA and RIAA strengthen their grip.

Bring it on.

Every year of my 30 odd years on Earth has seen me given more access to information then the year before. I am not afraid of Bill, I have more friends then he does.

The Internet Protocol is about bits

Rubbish. Vista doesn't change anything having to do with the Internet Protocol. You move bits around. You move them around freely.

The question now is, what sort of bits do they want to sell you? It won't work to sell the same bits to two different people any more, because the freedom of the Internet is still just the same as it always was.

What's changing is the kind of bits they sell, and the software that they use to interpret those bits. That's an attempt to make money of the effort that they put into creating those bits.

Maybe it'll work. More likely not; somebody will always find a way to get something resembling the original form of the bits, and then people won't want the highly individualized version. I just haven't seen a good alternative yet. (And if you want to talk about live performances, reply only if you've ever tried to make a living booking venues for a band. I have. Start with an anecdote about how badly you were treated so I know you're not BSing me)

But if you want to say, "Hey, remember the good old days when I got all my music for free, and only suckers actually paid for it?", well, whatever. More power to you. Just don't expect the guys who make bits for a living to reminisce along with you.

Re:The Internet Protocol is about bits

Rubbish. Vista doesn't change anything having to do with the Internet Protocol. You move bits around. You move them around freely.

You use to then be able to use those bits freely. Now you can't courtesy of DRM. The freedom to copy useless bits is not what the net is about.

But if you want to say, "Hey, remember the good old days when I got all my music for free, and only suckers actually paid for it?", well, whatever. More power to you. Just don't expect the guys who make bits for a living to reminisce along with you.

I like the guys who make the original bits (artists). I'd like to give them money so they can keep going. On the other hand the guys that change those bits so I can't play them, try to make me re-buy everything and refuse to properly compensate the artists can go fuck themselves.

If you're going to talk like a clueless angst ridden pre-teen, expect to be talked down to like one.

MySpace

"Our freedom to play, experiment, share and seek inspiration from the creative works of others is increasingly restricted so that large companies can lock our culture down for their own profit"

Does this mean that MySpace won't be the eye sore that it is thanks to Vista?
Thanks Vista!

The threat is really

E-commerce... If you go back 10 years on the net, it was a wild and wooly place where people exchanged ideas, and software etc for nothing... or next to nothing (remember the comments that open source was communistic). Somewhere along the line more people started piling on the bandwagon leaving behind AOL, Prodigy, CompuServe et al and the business folk noticed. This lead to the .com boom and eventual bust and then, napster... which led to the first attempts at DRM. Now, everybody with a server wants to make a buck, and to protect that, one of the items in the toolbox is DRM. There are others, but if the intent for the studios is to deliver content to your computer and on to your TV, they want everybody and anybody involved to lock down the system to protect them from you and all your criminal buddies. Vista DRM is bad... sure so is Apple's DRM. Remember the claim that only pirates use linux...

Don't be defeatist, it is NOT a one-way street

Remember that for years Microsoft, AOL, Compuserve, and almost all the mainstream media fought the Internet in varying ways. MS, for example, said that it was a bad idea destined to fail and that everybody should use MSN. They tried not to support it, and tried instead to corrupt and kill it. In some ways they've never stopped, but losing that battle has been fantastic for their bottom line. The pundits at Time and in the PC magazines said the Internet couldn't possibly scale for more than another year or so.

They were wrong, and their parent publications were generally too stupid (or embarrassed) to archive their words on the Internet, so I don't have links for you...

And as for AOL/Compuserve... well, they hardly matter now.

My point is, the companies that try to exert greater control by giving their customers less control, the companies who spend as much effort making their products worse as making them better, do not always win. In fact, they quite often lose. It is largely up to us.

Now, cable companies and telcos tend to be an exception, because they basically have government-backed monopolies and there are so few that they can collude with each other. Even they are vulnerable in the long run, just not to market forces.

Summary = FUD, article = great

The summary says:

Bill Thompson warns readers that new DRM technology, especially that found in Vista, is damaging the freedoms that the internet was based on.

The article says:

...It is not that the features built into Windows are evil, as some of the more hyperbolic bloggers claim, nor even that they are unnecessary.

It is that they change the way our computers work and the way they relate to the network, and those changes could be used to take away our freedoms.

Thanks to the internet we are seeing an unprecedented shift of power from the centre to the people, a shift that we observe in the media, in politics and in the way large companies respond to their customers.

We need to ensure that the freedoms we currently enjoy online are preserved as the network evolves, or this shift could easily end up as minor historical footnote.

The article is a warning to be vigilant, not a cry of impending doom. It's worth reading. Just ignore the summary.

seek inspiration from the creative works of others

"...seek inspiration from the creative works of others..."

Is that what they call not paying what your favorite band is asking for their latest studio production these days? If the band just wants to inspire you, they can (and do) give it away. I'd like to be inspired with free subscriptions to the complete, hard work of the thousands of people that cause SciAm, the WSJ, the NYT, and others to exist, myself. Just for inspiration, mind you. No? Fascists! The MAN is controlling me!

If a filmaker wants you seek inspiration from her creative works, rather than pay for it as entertainment, she has all sorts of ways to make that work available without DRM, and without charging her audience. More likely, though, she hopes you will be inspired, but also that you'll actually pay what she's asking - so that she can eat, pay her production team, hire talent, invest in new projects, and inspire other creative people by doing things like giving them jobs with paychecks to work in the field, etc., rather than looking for a pirated copy of what she just spent three years and all of her investors' money making.

This notion that we're no longer in the good old days when a few nerdly saints had wide-reaching internet access and liberally swapped around material (read as, "physics white papers"), and that if we were all just sweet and nice, we could go back to those days... B.S.

You've got untold hundreds of millions of consumers (a microscopic fraction of which are inspiration-seeking creators) that don't see the 'net as The Glue Of Freedom, but as The Place Where I Don't Have To Pay For Things Cuz That's What My Friends Do And What Do You Mean Blank CDs Cost Money. Those that are looking to inspire and be inspired have all sorts of venues, and can and do swap their works with each other freely (AIB/S). Inspirers/ees aren't traveling in the same circles as the leeches.

Viacom telling YouTube to take down the stuff that Viacom produces and distributes isn't the same as The Man telling Professor Wonder-Visionary that he can't post video of himself standing in a bathtub reciting his Haiku for both of his fans/disciples. You can go to wonderful web sites like photo.net [photo.net] and see freely shared, posted, fantastic, inspiring work (complete with technical discussions!) that's there in exactly the spirit that the Beeb's guy says is going away. But you can't just go and run off with a copy of Annie Leibovitz's new collection of work because she's decided to earn money with it if the book is reviewed well enough to earn paying customers. If no one wants to pay what she's asking, then the book won't sell - but that doesn't make it reasonable to expect it to be therefore free if you just look hard enough for someone who's scanned it and put up on a web site someplace in the name of "internet freedom."

The Way I See It...

...as soon as profit becomes the motivation in ANY area of life, the quality of that area decreases tremendously. In the case of Microsoft and the internet, this is quite obvious. Sure, they are financially successful, but they have as yet to prove themselves on the technical front. There are many things that I cannot do in Windows, that I can do on alternate platforms. To me, it's all about technical prowess and not popularity or financial gain. From that viewpoint, Microsoft is mediocre at best.

Just to give you a few analogies. Back before the web was what it is today, there was a time when Usenet was where you went for "community" and information. Back then, you could be somewhat more trusting that the person on the other side of the wire was what they said they were and the information was valid. You were interacting with the "best of the best" in the various scientific fields. At that time, the internet was not what one would consider a financial success. But it was much more successful as a tool for self education and research. (Hell, I got a response from Stephen J. Hawking that I was allowed to use in a college paper at a state school in the U.S. How cool is that?)

So why were things so much better back then? There was a natural filter in place. A barrier to entry. You HAD to be more intelligent back then to get on the net. You had to be able to deal with your computer at a deeper level than just pointing and clicking. Or, you had to be a member of an organization that was either military, research or academic. There was a silent selection process going on that ensured that people would be of a certain level of intelligence to be able to join in. As soon as Netscape was released to the Masses and companies like AOL switched from their private proprietary networks to the internet, that filter started to dissolve.

Today, ANY idiot with enough cash or access to a computer at work can jump online and post anything he or she wants to. They can be as "authoritative" as they want. Why did this happen? Because the true point of the internet (free exchange of information, ideas, collaboration on culturally and globally beneficial non-profit projects) was lost.

Instead it became a business tool to be used by one tech company to try and beat another one to death with. It became a pitched battle to be fought to the financial death of your competitor. So, Joe Dumbass was allowed onto the internet to cultivate and share his collection of porn as well as try and "hook up" with "hot chix". Jane Dumbass was allowed to get online and post her mixed photo album of baby photos, various lovers and erotic photos to say, "This is me and I rule. I take your man. I love my baby's daddy". The businesses don't care as long as they get their monthly fee paid. Yea profit motive. Way to go there. Taking what could have been a great way to augment collevtive intellience and once again (as with radio and television) and slowly turning it into another brain sucking avenue for profits and consumerism.

There was even an early time on the web where a search in Altavista would give you decent results on various topics without providing many links to companies that sell related products. But today, no matter which search engine you use, various searches inevitably turn up a lot of dreck that is meant to convince you to BUY a solution to a problem instead of BUILD one. It's no wonder that I've resorted to using Wikipedia when I have questions about things as well as AUGMENTING the information with the subscription databases that my public library provides to it's members for free. At least following those routes, one can avoid the McNet for the most part.

Che image in article

I wish I knew whether the "Che" image in the article is expressing a positive or a negative aspect. Ernesto "Che" Guevara was responsible for the execution of many people.

So Mr. Author of the article. Are you saying Che would of resisted control of the internet? or Embraced the Cuban style lockdown that exists now (IN Cuba).

What exactly does the image mean in the context of the article?

Can someone explain to me what the problem is...

...or why I should care?

All I see in this article is an opportunistic activist using the launch of Vista to reiterate a general disdain for corporate hegemony with a bunch of vague platitudes and appeals to emotion.

Can I download DRM-free movies/music from bittorrent with Vista? Yes.
Can I rip and burn DVDs with Vista? Yes.
Can I buy a computer without Vista and install Linux on my own? Yes.
Does Vista prevent me from visiting Internet sites devoted to unpopular, taboo or anti-corporate sub-culture? No.
Does Vista curtail by ability to create art or publish my viewpoint for the entire world to see? No.

So, what's really behind this diatribe?

Re:Can someone explain to me what the problem is..

The problem is that they're trying to establish the principle that you don't get to control your own hardware. That's the only way to get DRM to work. DRM can never function the way they want it to on a true general-purpose computer.

Can I buy a computer without Vista and install Linux on my own? Yes.
Look at what happened with decss. We're going to end up with a future in which Linux is seen as a crippled platform. Have you ever watched a video of any kind on a Linux box, using OSS? Congratulations, if you're a U.S. citizen, you were almost certainly using illegal software. All the usable video codecs are patent encumbered, and the mpegla licensing only allows 100,000 copies of a particular implementation to be produced before you have to start paying royalties.

No kidding?

Well duh.. that is what large coporations and governments do..

If you had paid more attention in history class this woudnt be such a surprise.

When it gets too bad, people revolt, and we start the process all over again.

I think it's time people find a solution.

One thing, if you don't read the entire post please don't comment on it. This is a long process but the biggest problem is people are acting like idiots about all this stuff and the companies are feeling threatened rather then realizing their actions are causing them problems.

First things you don't need a vista, music, movies, or anything else of that sort. This is important to understand before I proceed with this post because people have to understand music, movies, and the rest are elective choices, not rights that they are entitled to.

Second piracy is NOT an answer. I don't care how much you feel you're entitled to a movie or music. Stealing it instead of supporting that industry is theft, not "your right". I don't care what the RIAA or MPAA did to you, your mother, some random woman, or your dog. They own the rights to that music or movies. If you think that they shouldn't, inform your favorite singer, actor, director about alternatives. Don't support them, or what ever, but don't give them a reason to feel morally entitled to your money.

When you pirate anything you basically give the opposition a right to send you to jail, you have stolen the profits from them. You may not have stolen the music (that's up to you to decide) but they have less money than if you bought that copy outright. If you really wouldn't have bought the music, then don't download it. Why do we have DRM and lawsuits? Because people pirate movies and music and the RIAA feels a need to control this.

The exception to this rule is if there isn't a system in place where you can get the movies or music in your area then there is the one and pretty much only exception to this rule. There's not much you can do if you want to hear a soundtrack to a foreign film, but again realize that if X company buys the rights to the soundtrack you should expect to buy it at a reasonable price. (what ever the current rate is for cds. Remember the idea here is not to screw the company, the idea is to get them to realize that their tactics are wrong).

Third, start boycotting. This is the most important thing, don't steal it, don't borrow it and don't return it. Don't listen to that new Britney Spears/Enimem/Weird al cd unless you have bought it through a process that you agree with. Find a way to get music you like with out DRM, buy it that way. But at the same time if you are buying music don't start giving music away to all your friends. If they come over feel free to play it for them or loan them the disc but don't rip a copy for them, don't go and post it on bittorrent. That just shows you're helping people steal from the company and doesn't correctly support the process.

The bottom line is stop stealing these properties, and stop supporting them. That's the ONLY way you're going to stop DRM and stop the tactics of the groups. Find better groups and bands or alternative software if you're so pissed about it. But stealing them and bitching about DRM loses it's effectiveness once you have stolen the media because they actually do have to protect their media or at least find a way that people have a way to control the rights to their own property. Remember, the RIAA might steal from the artist but downloading the music also means the artist isn't getting any money. (I don't care if the artist only gets 25 cents from the RIAA, downloading that music means that 25 cents isn't being given.)

Just don't buy it

If you don't like Vista's DRM, don't buy it. If don't like the terms under which a song or a movie is distributed, don't buy it. If a product is defective, restrictive, or limited by design, then why in hell would you buy it. Microsoft may have an monopoly but there are alternatives. Speak with your wallet and they will listen.

Re:Duh

Certainly profit and freedom can co-exist ...

The problem is that the music/movie industry's control has been lost largely because of how the internet works and they're using all of their power to regain control. If in 1998-2000 the music industry realized that they didn't need to sell physical media anymore, and passed the savings onto their customers, there would be very little piracy and there would be no need for DRM; the same thing could be said about movies today.

Re:Duh

"It's all well and good to believe that, but just because some random guy on Slashdot says it doesn't mean it is (or isn't) true.

I was almost convinced until you said something about passing the savings on to the customer. Obviously you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about!"

I admit that it is an old fashioned concept but it is not (entirely) dead ...

Consider Walmart, an entire empire was built because Walmart found a way to reduce costs and pass the savings onto the customer; had Walmart tried to reduce costs and increase their ROI on every product sold they would probably have never grown into what they are today.

Now I could be wrong but I believe that if music on iTunes (or any music store) was dramatically less expensive (say $0.25 per song) you would see a lot more money spent on music and few people would be willing to admit that they stole an album; at $4 per album I could see most parents buying their children a $20 iTunes card a month, and everyone would (possibly) download the entire album of an artist when they liked one song they heard. At $15-$20 per album the cost almost justifies the effort required to download the album for free.

Re:Duh

Besides, what is the point of freedom if you're not allowed to profit some way or another? "Freedom" means more than a little garage band of hippies writing anti-war songs and practicing "free love", as idyllic as that scene may seem. It also means that I get to go out and do something to better myself, better my family, get my kids a decent education, a nice home, a safe neighborhood, braces, and something nicer than beans and rice for dinner every night of the week. Maybe even some sort of music lessons. And all of that is profit. Lots of things are profit. Profit is good. It is, in fact, the lack of profit which we suffer when something takes away our freedoms, with icky DRM and lawsuits and things like that.

And, taking your post as some sort of anti-capitalist statement, it's not exactly as if those eeeeeevil capitalists are the first people to infringe upon freedoms in the pursuit of more profit or power for themselves (and less for others, and less overall). Why, I hear they've had kings and czars and feudal systems and wars and such going alllll the way back. All the way.

No . Actually

Freedom and Equality don't mix . Freedom is being free to be better than the person next to you . Be it science, power, wealth or sports.
Freedom is ambition.