Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×
Technology Your Rights Online

Jon Johansen Interviewed 370

wuzfuzzy writes "Depending on your point of view, Jon Lech Johansen is either your hero or adversary. To the copyright industry, Jon Lech Johansen has been a detriment to their policy of control since the advent of DeCSS (Decrypt Content Scrambling System.) To those who cherish freedom, he has been a pillar of hope in an age when DRM (Digital Rights Management) threatens to overtake mainstream media. After two trials, the courts finally ruled in Jon's favor. However, there is much more to Jon Lech Johansen than DeCSS. In this interview, Slyck hopes to bring to light the many facets of Mr. Johansen, and the numerous projects he is involved with."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Jon Johansen Interviewed

Comments Filter:
  • Reasonable (Score:2, Interesting)

    by n9uxu8 ( 729360 )
    Seems a reasonable enough feller. I thought the university comment was quite interesting.
  • Ah yes... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Sanity ( 1431 ) * on Tuesday April 05, 2005 @11:47AM (#12144234) Homepage Journal
    ...I remember the days when everyone loved this guy, that was, of course, until he applied his skills to slashdot's favorite purveyor of DRM [apple.com].
    • Re:Ah yes... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      User 1431 and you still haven't figured out that everybody on Slashdot is not the same person?

      What we have here is... failure to communicate!

      There's some people you just... can't... reach.
      • Re:Ah yes... (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Sanity ( 1431 ) *
        User 1431 and you still haven't figured out that everybody on Slashdot is not the same person?
        Perhaps if you had been here longer you might have noticed that the moderation system clearly promotes some opinions over others and encourages a self-reinforcing groupthink.
  • by garcia ( 6573 ) * on Tuesday April 05, 2005 @11:49AM (#12144247)
    When your DVD player tells you "This operation is not allowed" when you try to skip commercials, it becomes pretty clear that DRM really stands for Digital Restrictions Management.

    Exactly! When I buy a DVD (not rent) I expect to have complete control over how I view that content. My DVD player has no right to restrict me from fastfowarding through any part of that media.

    Any DVD I purchase that does not allow me to fastfoward any part is immediately ripped, stripped, and burned. That's my right. Thank you Jon!
    • Aren't you required to view the FBI copyright warning?
    • I'll go further: any DVD I buy is ripped and burned as a backup with menus and dubbing removed. Menus can actually be worse than advertisment when they are too long and prevents you from changing the settings while watching the movie.
    • DRRM = Digital Right to Restrict Management
    • You're doing it wrong. It's not the media that's preventing you from fast-forwarding, it's the player.

      The media tells the player "you *should* not allow FF here", but it's up to the player to comply or not - thou I haven't seen one that allows you not to comply, I know my current sony won't, and it's a PITA!
  • by Anonymous Coward
    I thought we had a great Ivy League candidate, since he said he want to Yale. Then he told me his name was Yon Yohansen.
    • My name is Yon Yonson,
      I work in Wisconsin,
      I work in a lumbermill there.
      The people I meet
      when I walk down the street,
      They say,
      "What's your name?"
      And I say,
      "My name is Yon Yonsin, I work in Wisconsin..."


      -- Slaughterhouse-Five
  • A pertinent quote! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Pants75 ( 708191 ) on Tuesday April 05, 2005 @11:53AM (#12144304)
    When your DVD player tells you "This operation is not allowed" when you try to skip commercials, it becomes pretty clear that DRM really stands for Digital Restrictions Management.

    Right On Jon! I already paid for the DVD I don't see why I should be forced to sit though adverts after that.

    Just let me navigate the content of my new DVD in the manner I choose thanks very much!

    It is just a pity that the studios/player manufacturers are not going to listen to the public on this matter.

    • by garcia ( 6573 ) * on Tuesday April 05, 2005 @12:00PM (#12144364)
      It is just a pity that the studios/player manufacturers are not going to listen to the public on this matter.

      They aren't going to listen to the minority. The MPAA and RIAA have the power of nearly limitless funding for FUD campaigns against fair-use. Sadly, it's already working.

      People accept that DRM will be on digital TV content. "Oh, I don't see why I should be able to timeshift my shows outside of a predetermined timeslot!" "Oh, copying DVDs is wrong!" "Oh, listening to my music on more than three different computers and devices is unncessary!" "I don't need to burn music more than 5 times!"

      This is where the road is leading. People will continue to be told that fair-use doesn't exist and they will continue to accept it because there really is no other way (in their eyes).

      So the public is going to listen to them on this matter.
      • Agreed (Score:5, Insightful)

        by bogie ( 31020 ) on Tuesday April 05, 2005 @01:29PM (#12145225) Journal
        Drives me nuts. I especially can't stand the Apple DRM fanboys. Oh how I disklike them. Thank God for people like Jon.

        The music industry survived for years and years with NO copy restrictions at all. Tapes and CD's could be copied at will. And best of all at the height of "Copyright infringement" and P2P, the record companies are making record profits.

        Any yet now we are supposed to accept these lockdowns and be grateful at all for their services? Because as the parent pointed out that's already happening. Let's look at what Apple has done with the power of DRM to brainwash users. Restrict from Internet streaming to local streaming. Restrict from unlimited Lan to 5 users a day. Restrict from 10 burns of a playlist to 7(IIRC), and finally as someone else had pointed out disabled features on Itunes and the Ipod to lock out competitors.

        And still Apple DRM fanboys and people ignorant of how damaging DRM can be talk about how great it is . Well from here it sure as heck looks like real world DRM implementation suck and are only getting worse. Itunes 5.0 is going to be locked down so tight you can only listen to your songs in a locked room in the presense of an authorized Apple Rep.

        btw I should mention I have no problem with Itunes and besides the Ipod being expensive have no problem with it either. This prasing of DRM and accepting your software being locked down has to stop.
    • Right On Jon! I already paid for the DVD I don't see why I should be forced to sit though adverts after that.

      Yes and no: you also pay for a magazine, and have to look for the content you WANT in between the advertisemements. Admitted, you aren't FORCED to look at the advertisements, but still...

      Would the price of DVDs go up it they had no advertisements (in case of magazines: definitely). Would you be prepared to pay more?

  • by a3217055 ( 768293 ) on Tuesday April 05, 2005 @11:53AM (#12144305)
    Slyck.com Interviews Jon Lech Johansen
    April 4, 2005
    Thomas Mennecke [mailto]


    Depending on your point of view, Jon Lech Johansen is either your hero or adversary. To the copyright industry, Jon Lech Johansen has been a detriment to their policy of control since the advent of DeCSS (Decrypt Content Scrambling System.) To those who cherish freedom, he has been a pillar of hope in an age when DRM (Digital Rights Management) threatens to overtake mainstream media.
    Jon Lech Johansen became well known for his role in the development of DeCSS. Jon spent 3 long years in the Norwegian courts proving his innocence. The American movie industry pressured the Norwegian Economic Crime Unit to press charges against Jon Lech Johansen in 2000 for allegedly bypassing the CSS copy protection on DVDs.

    After two trials, the courts finally ruled in Jon's favor. However, there is much more to Jon Lech Johansen than DeCSS. In this interview, Slyck hopes to bring to light the many facets of Mr. Johansen, and the numerous projects he is involved with.

    Describe your role in the development of DeCSS. Was is a group effort or were you the mastermind behind it?

    DeCSS was written by 3 people: a German developer, a Dutch developer and myself. The reverse engineering was done by the German.

    From time to time I see people repeat the claim that DeCSS was only made possible because a DVD player manufacturer forgot to "protect" their DVD player. This is a myth that is perpetuated by people who don't understand how computers work. Code obfuscation only slows down reverse engineering, it doesn't block it.

    What was the motivation behind creating DeCSS?

    The motivation was being able to play DVDs the way we want to. I don't like being forced to use a specific operating system or a specific player to watch movies (or listen to music.) Nor do I like being forced to watch commercials. When your DVD player tells you "This operation is not allowed" when you try to skip commercials, it becomes pretty clear that DRM really stands for Digital Restrictions Management.

    Did you ever expect the level of legal entanglements; and for it to become as popular as it is today?

    No and no.

    How difficult was it do break the CSS encryption? What did it take to break the encryption?

    Technically DeCSS didn't break CSS. Breaking a crypto algorithm requires revealing and/or exploiting a method that's faster than brute force. DeCSS simply implemented CSS the same way as a normal DVD player.

    CSS was however broken by Frank Andrew Stevenson: http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/DeCSS/FrankStevenson/ index.html [cmu.edu]. Many DVD decryption tools today exploit the weaknesses in CSS that he revealed.

    Another myth is that DeCSS is illegal because it uses a "stolen" key. A CSS key is 5 bytes. How anyone can think that it's possible to "steal" 5 bytes is beyond me. 5 bytes do not have any protection under copyright law because it's not an original work. It's probably possible for 5 bytes to be protected under trade secret law, but CSS hasn't been a trade secret since DeCSS was released and mirrored all over the net. Is someone who names their child "Frank" (5 bytes) stealing Frank's name? It's absurd.

    Was there at any point during the DeCSS trials when you felt you were in serious trouble, or were you confident throughout that you would emerge victorious?

    I was confident throughout.

    What was the expression(s) on the face of the movie industry when you were finally acquitted?

    The MPAA's (or rather, the MPA, which is the international arm of the MPAA) Norwegian lawyer was present for most of the first trial. I don't remember if he was present when the judgment was handed down, but if he was, he was probably wearing his standard grumpy look.

    For the acquitt
  • by Realistic_Dragon ( 655151 ) on Tuesday April 05, 2005 @11:56AM (#12144328) Homepage
    From the interview:

    People who claim that the iTMS DRM is a "good compromise" have naively bought into the impending doom propaganda.

    He has a point - the DRM that comes with iTunes is already creeping up in restrictions from the point at which you first agreed to it. Perhaps you should take another look and think again if it is really worth it to you?

    I remember all the comments here about how no one would buy anything with DRM attached... but then it turns out that yes, most of Slashdot indeed would buy it willingly. How very dissapointing.
    • by calibanDNS ( 32250 ) <brad_statonNO@SPAMhotmail.com> on Tuesday April 05, 2005 @12:08PM (#12144435)
      Just to be clear, a lot of us who use iTMS do remove the DRM from the files. There have been numerous projects that have popped up to do this since iTMS launched and there probably will continue to be. If Apple ever manages to implement a DRM scheme that no one can get around losslessly then you can be damn sure I'll stop buying from them. Is what I'm doing a violation of the TOS? Absolutely. But I am not pirating music; I am buying a license to listen to a song and upholding my right to listen to it when, where, and how I want. So long as I'm not distributing the material, I don't see a problem with that.
      • The problem is, you're effectively telling apple you like their DRM. They don't know you're removing it - they just add you to the big list of customers they can present to the record companies and say
        'See? people are accepting our DRM, and if any nasty people manage to buy your music without DRM, or listen to the music they paid for on too many computers, we can lock it down harder and people will still accept it!'

        DRM won't get lighter, or less restrictive, only more so. And you buying it under those cond
    • by Otter ( 3800 )
      He has a point - the DRM that comes with iTunes is already creeping up in restrictions from the point at which you first agreed to it. Perhaps you should take another look and think again if it is really worth it to you?

      The initial versions of iTunes and iTMS had the barest minimum of DRM required to keep the RIAA happy. It was all trivially breakable and Apple's attitude was essentially "We're trying to make it easy on you, so try to behave, huh?" And every 1337 h4xor like Johansen instantly broke everyt

  • hmm (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Sv-Manowar ( 772313 ) on Tuesday April 05, 2005 @11:58AM (#12144338) Homepage Journal
    the most interesting thing he's done recently in my opinion was hacking the VC-1 codec from SMPTE into VLC. Something that provides real hope for linux and mac users trying to view WMV9 encoded video content

    not to belittle the rest of his accomplishments, but I feel this one has the greatest possible advantage in legitimate terms
  • Stolen CCS key ? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by amanox ( 862297 ) on Tuesday April 05, 2005 @12:05PM (#12144407)
    This paragraph struck me as odd:
    "Another myth is that DeCSS is illegal because it uses a "stolen" key. A CSS key is 5 bytes. How anyone can think that it's possible to "steal" 5 bytes is beyond me. 5 bytes do not have any protection under copyright law because it's not an original work. It's probably possible for 5 bytes to be protected under trade secret law, but CSS hasn't been a trade secret since DeCSS was released and mirrored all over the net. Is someone who names their child "Frank" (5 bytes) stealing Frank's name? It's absurd."

    If those 5 bytes are a key to unlock something.. ehm.. I think comparing that to someones first name is a bit weird. If someone has my credit-card code, I would say they stole my code.

    For the record, as I do not want this thing to be flooded with "Great , go ahead and support DRM", I'm 100% against DRM. They have been spending a thousand times more on DRM-development than what they claim they have lost by illegal copies. DRM is only good if you want to finance the legal department and throw money out of the window, because no DRM will be 100% safe, and all DRM-schemes that I've seen passing by were broken, sometimes even before their official release. Not to mention they cause enormous headaches with their paying customers, and I don't think paying customers are the kind of people they want to piss off.
    • Re:Stolen CCS key ? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by hey! ( 33014 ) on Tuesday April 05, 2005 @12:46PM (#12144814) Homepage Journal
      Well, I think the question he is asking is if we are going to use the word "stealing", then this brings in the concept of "property". Well, Ok, if it's property -- what kind of property is it?

      Is the key an invention, that could be covered by a patent? No.

      Is the key an expression, that could be covered by copyright? No.

      What the key is, is a secret. Unless there is some specific law, secrets can be "stolen" in a vernacular sense but it's not legally theft. Secrets are not property. Trade secerts are sometimes referred to as "intellectual property", but they aren't really treated as property except by those who contractually agree to treat them so.

      That said, this is in part because the law hasn't caught up to the last century, much less this one. For example most people believe that individuals have a kind of proprietary interest to confidential information about themselves. The idea of people trafficking in confidential information about them without their knowledge or consent seems to them a violation of privacy rights. But there is, at least in the US, no legal recognition of any such rights, which makes identity "theft" so easy. It's sophistry to say that because something is legally not property, that it cannot be stolen. When people say "stealing" in this situation, they are talking about misappropriating or misusing something that you have no moral right to.

      Personally, I think that a person who duly pays for a DVD should be able to play any place he wants and any time he wants. It's like my old leftie uncle Ivan used to say years and years ago: "Kid, nobody really believes in capitalism, nobody believes in socialism. It's socialism for me, capitalism for you." The replace "capitalism" and "socialism" with "free trade", and it's still true. If workers have to compete in the global market for wages, they should benefit from price competition too.

      So, I think that breaking CSS is the right thing to do. But not because you can't steal what isn't legally property. It's because accessing something that is completely within your rights isn't stealing in any sense of the word.
    • by bleckywelcky ( 518520 ) on Tuesday April 05, 2005 @12:52PM (#12144864)
      I think you missed the point. The number inherently has no protection with it. If your CC number is 1234 5678 9101 1121 and I have that number written down on a piece of paper, then I have done nothing wrong. The number itself is not something that can be stolen. The number is not copyrighted. It is not patented. It is not trademarked. And if I wanted to use that number as a transaction identifier for my own purchases, I have done nothing wrong. However, the moment I use that number to access your financial assets, then I have done something wrong. But not because I used that number, but because I accessed your financial assets without your permission.

      So the number thing is straight. But the grey area is once you have a piece of software or hardware that you have bought, and you use that key to do something with either, is that wrong?

      Personally, I would say no. Because I believe in having total and complete access to everything in your possession. And I believe in the individual's ability to reverse-engineer anything that they can understand. A good analogy would be the differential on a RWD vehicle. Let's say all we had was limited-slip differentials on the market (no locking diffs), and someone came around to developing a locking diff and sold it. But they were the only ones that knew how to build a locking diff, so they sealed the diff inside a casing that required a key to open. If the end user found the key, they should be able to use it to open up the diff. Then they can look inside to see how it works, and build their own if they so choose. And they should be able to share that information with whomever they choose.

      However, the protection for the company comes with their patent on the locking diff ... so the moment anyone tries to start selling locking diffs instead of just building them for personal use, they can hit them with patent infringment and collect royalties (or shut them down, whatever).

      Tinkering should never be outlawed ... it is basically a suppression of one's freedom, their freedom to think anything they want and to learn anything they choose. The laws should start at redistributing the content for financial gain.
    • The other way his analogy breaks down is the limited keyspace of a person's 5-letter name. "Frank" is one of 26^5, or 11,881,376, five-letter permutations, most of which are invalid in any language. Five bytes of random bits occupies 256^5, or 109,951,162,776 permutations. The actual keyspace of 5 bytes is almost 10,000 times larger than 5-letter names.
  • Hero or adversary? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 05, 2005 @12:11PM (#12144461)
    Why do things have to be so black and white? I don't care one way or the other. DeCSS Jon is marginally better than Mitnick, because Jon actually produces something and is Fighting the Power (TM) and Sticking it to the Man (TM)... and that's a good thing. I don't agree with all that he does, but at least he's out there in the proverbial trenches doing what he thinks is right rather than just stealing music (or credit card numbers, like Mitnick) just because he can. He's also not a famewhore like Mitnick, trying to turn a moment of dubious fame into 3) profit!!! Mitnick proves that Scott Adams is right: people get promoted because management knows their name, and one only gets one's name known when it's attached to some disaster. Thus, companies hire criminals like Mitnick as "security experts" because they've heard the man's name.
    I put Jon into the same category as Linus... someone pushing the boundaries of the electronic world, and our rights therein. Someone has to be the pioneer, if mainstream society is to struggle with the issues brought up by the envelope-pusher.
  • Eh (Score:4, Insightful)

    by worst_name_ever ( 633374 ) on Tuesday April 05, 2005 @12:13PM (#12144479)
    Depending on your point of view, Jon Lech Johansen is either your hero or adversary.

    Or you might think he's just some guy, you know?

  • Freedom? (Score:5, Funny)

    by kirkb ( 158552 ) on Tuesday April 05, 2005 @12:17PM (#12144511) Homepage
    To those who cherish freedom, he has been a pillar of hope
    Since when did George Bush's writers start submitting slashdot articles?
  • Master and Commander (Score:5, Informative)

    by Mr_Silver ( 213637 ) on Tuesday April 05, 2005 @12:18PM (#12144516)
    When your DVD player tells you "This operation is not allowed" when you try to skip commercials, it becomes pretty clear that DRM really stands for Digital Restrictions Management.

    The best example of this is the DVD of "Master and Commander". It forces you sit through 10 minutes of advertising of other films before you get to the main menu!

    I found this requirement to be shockingly obnoxious.

    • Although you can't get to the main menu by using the "menu" button in that situation, you might be able to press the stop button, which takes you to the logo screen on your DVD player. Then, pressing the play button would dump you into the main menu.
    • Reap what you sow (Score:4, Insightful)

      by gosand ( 234100 ) on Tuesday April 05, 2005 @02:56PM (#12146137)
      The best example of this is the DVD of "Master and Commander". It forces you sit through 10 minutes of advertising of other films before you get to the main menu!

      This just shows how the MPAA has brought this on themselves. When DVDs first came out, what was the point of CSS? Average people couldn't make copies of DVDs until pretty recently. Was it forethought regarding the copying capability of the public? Hardly. It was about control. They wanted to be able to control the format. They wanted to be able to sell licenses of their product to DVD player manufacturers. They are still doing this today, but their grip is slipping.

      Look at WHY DeCSS was created:

      The motivation was being able to play DVDs the way we want to. I don't like being forced to use a specific operating system or a specific player to watch movies (or listen to music.) Nor do I like being forced to watch commercials. When your DVD player tells you "This operation is not allowed" when you try to skip commercials, it becomes pretty clear that DRM really stands for Digital Restrictions Management.

      The MPAA and their cronies pushed the boundaries of good business, and got called on it. They thought nobody could do anything about it, so they didn't even consider backing down. I don't know of ANYONE who likes to sit through the crap they are forced to sit through on DVDs. The problem is, people are willing to put up with the inconvenience because there are no other options. Now there are, so MPAA - reap what you sow motherfuckers.

  • To those who cherish freedom...

    Don't mince words, Taco. Tell us how you really feel.

    Seriously, though. While I'm not a fan of DRM by any means, I'm a little unhappy with the fact that a lot of anti-DRM advocates use strongly charged statements like this one in their arguments. I think the argument that once I've paid for content I should be able to device-shift it at will is solid enough without regressing into hyperbole and strawman attacks.
  • Misguided Youth... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by skribble ( 98873 ) on Tuesday April 05, 2005 @12:33PM (#12144687) Homepage

    Ok, this guy may have some valid ideas about DRM, but I feel that a artist/musician/owner/company... whoever, has the right to protect/use/distribute thier product however they see fit and if someone doesn't like it then they have every right not to purchase it. Wresting control of a item away from it's owner is not a nobal pursuit.

    BTW normal consumer actions often police the worst sorts of DRM and Meida lock. Example... Disney once released a DVD were you couldn't skip the previews, they did this once, got slammed by the consumers and stopped doing it. If you want to change something you can do it with dollars.

    If this guy is so smart about DRM and the finances of Media Companies, then I suggest he start his own media company and see how long it takes for himto go out of business.

  • How is being anti digital RIGHTS management cherishing freedom? Maybe you mean to say "freedom to do whatever you want with things you spend money on." I guess we should be lobbying to be able to burn money next, oops, you don't really own your money.
  • the write-up (Score:4, Insightful)

    by monkease ( 726622 ) on Tuesday April 05, 2005 @01:01PM (#12144938) Homepage
    To those who cherish freedom, he has been a pillar of hope in an age when DRM (Digital Rights Management) threatens to overtake mainstream media.

    Okay, this is bad.

    Have we degenerated to the level of the government that we must use overblown rhetoric, that we don't question such rhetoric?

    This is classic Loyalty Oath type stuff--"You Love Freedom, Yes?" "Um.. yeah..." "Then You Love Senator McCarthy."

    I have the highest respect for those whom I can view as "pillars of hope", but I also have the highest respect for our language, and shit like this is, at best, abuse, at worst, propoganda.
  • My view on DRM (Score:4, Insightful)

    by BytePusher ( 209961 ) on Tuesday April 05, 2005 @01:30PM (#12145234) Homepage
    Ok, I've kept pretty silent about the whole DRM issue for a long time, because it doesn't really affect me. Since when was the "right to be entertained" a fundimental human right? I'm tired of hearing people whine, "I should be able to do whatever I want with my DVD." You bought a liscense, because that is what was sold to you. Just because I buy a book does not mean I can "do whatever I want with it." I can't copy it 50,000 times and sell it. I can't distribute it all over the internet. If you don't like what you're buying, stop buying it. Stop it with the childish ranting which is really rooted in your inability to break the entertainment-addiction.
    most of you sound something like this, "my entertainment dealer won't let me steal entertainment(drugs) from him for myself or to give to my friends. So, I'm really mad at him and I'm gonna find all sorts of creative ways to steal from him anyway."
    Whew, that said, I'm all for the freedom to develop and test new technologies. I just think there are better ways to stop DRM. Don't buy their liscenses. Don't buy anything from them until they sell exactly what you want. Otherwise, don't whine.
    • Re:My view on DRM (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ediron2 ( 246908 ) *
      Since when was the 'Right to be entertained...'

      In the US, let's start with unenumerated rights, contract under duress (since you go wankin' off on the whole license thing next) and glance for a moment at the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Of those 3, 2 fit into my doing anything I want on a DVD. In Norway, reverse-engineering for compatibility is also protected, per the article.

      Then you lost most of us completely at 'you bought a license.' Nope. We are buying stuff. CD's and DV
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 05, 2005 @01:45PM (#12145397)

    Is this [chscene.ch]. Now what do you think about him? An asshole? That's what I thought.

    Joe Connard

  • by CrazyWingman ( 683127 ) on Tuesday April 05, 2005 @01:54PM (#12145491) Journal
    So I was sitting here thinking about how I like to fast forward through commercials, and use adblock, and such, when I had a strange thought. So, I thought I would play a little Devil's Advocate, and toss it out here for comment.

    Think about how it is when you buy a magazine. The publication is chock full of advertisements. You can cut them out, but probably not without ruining at least one part of text. Fast forwarding a DVD is kind of like flipping past an ad page without reading it, but being as the technologies are different, I'm not quite sure how to compare them. So, what makes the magazine scenario different from the DVD one?

    In addition to the comment above, I offer another idea that makes some bit of sense: What would it cost to buy the same magazine without advertisements? I'm thinking quite a bit more, and I doubt I would pay for a magazine that cost $20-$50 (depending on content, of course). There are conflicting ideas about what a DVD "actually" costs to make, but if you think about how it would probably cost more if there were no advertisements, I think you can kind of see why they make you watch those advertisements.

    To me, it all boils down to the fact that a business is a business, and the only purpose of a business is to make money. If, in order to make money, a business has to agree that it will make a consumer watch someone else's add, then the business will do it in a heartbeat. It may suck for the user, but as long as they buy it anyway, it doesn't matter.

    Anyway, just thoughts. Respond if you wish, but I'd rather hear interesting arguments than rehashed, tired quotes and flames. :)
  • by javaxman ( 705658 ) on Tuesday April 05, 2005 @04:09PM (#12146999) Journal
    I can't believe someone in an article linked to from slashdot actually stated that arguing with unreasonable people who hide behind anonymity is a waste of time.

    I mean, sure, we knew that to be true... but to put it right out there like that kinda hurts when you realize it's probably the main activity going on around here...

Many people are unenthusiastic about their work.

Working...