Apple involved in Next Gen PC to HDTV Connectivity

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

A group of PC and consumer electronic companies announced today (http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/051220/sftu056.html?.v=37) that they are working on a specification for a new display-connector called UDI (http://guides.macrumors.com/UDI).

UDI stands for United Display Interface and is intended to serve as a next-generation digital display interface standard for PCs. It is expected to replace the old VGA analog standard connectors as well as providing compatibility with both the DVI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVI) and HDMI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI) standards presently used in High Definition consumer products.

UDI will support HDCP (High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection) which is also supported in the HDMI standard. The Special Interest Group includes a number of industry leaders, including Apple and Intel Corp.

According to this TG Daily article (http://www.tgdaily.com/2005/12/20/udisig_formation/), UDI will be the graphical interface "for the next ten years" by providing added bandwidth at least twice the capability of the largest displays today.

The final specification is expected to be finalized in the second quarter of 2006.

[Lacero]

Heard HANA was also mulling making Firewire standard for HD content delivery.

Electronics, Media Giants Form HD Alliance (http://www.technewsworld.com/story/NQsEIZL16wAEXH/Electronics-Media-Giants-Form-HD-Alliance.xhtml)




Here's to the Crazy Ones http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=35452 (http://www.uriah.com/apple-qt/movies/think-different.mov)

[Bubbasteve]

Well then I would be very tempted to buy a Mac Mini for my 42 inch Samsung DLP in my basement

[javabear90]

ug.. not another switch of display connectors. DVI, ADC, VGA, etc... to many!

[Veldek]

So, this will only replace VGA and not DVI?

[Chundles]

So, this will only replace VGA and not DVI?

No, it replaces everything. VGA is pretty much still the standard although DVI technically is. It will support DVI and HDMI.

[Mudbug]

Well then I would be very tempted to buy a Mac Mini for my 42 inch Samsung DLP in my basement

does said DLP have a HDMI connector already?

[Doctor Q]

Let's be more specific about the members of this UDI special interest group:Apple
Intel
LG Electronics
National Semiconductor
Samsung Electronics
Silicon Image
Contributors:FCI
Foxconn Electronics
JAE Electronics
NVIDIA
THine Electronics

[Dr. Dastardly]

So its compatible with DVI? Does that mean it will need some sort of special adapter? I don't want to have to relive the ADC connecter.

Damn Lacero do you just have a computer online to the Macrumors main page and hit refresh every ten seconds?:p

[Bubbasteve]

does said DLP have a HDMI connector already?

i'm pretty sure mine does, yes

[EricNau]

The PC world hasn't (for the most part) switched over to DVI, what makes us think they'll switch to this?

Dell will be using VGA for the next ten years. :rolleyes:

[puuukeey]

um... I don't get it. whats the advantage other than embedded copy protection and making consumers switch?

[arn]

um... I don't get it. whats the advantage other than embedded copy protection and making consumers switch?

Sounds like higher bandwidth. Remember, Apple's 30" display requires dual-link DVI connectors.

arn

[EricNau]

um... I don't get it. whats the advantage other than embedded copy protection and making consumers switch?
That's what keeps the world going. (Look at HP and how many different cartridges they have.) We should be happy; this keep the economy going. :rolleyes:

[runninmac]

Wow people are talking about way to many connectors... I don't even know whats "standard" anymore. I just want 1 single connector type and ill be set.

[vjl323]

This has got to be the worst move Apple could have made. HDCP is the MPAA's wet dream, as it will regulate what people can and can not view on their monitor. It's like having your speakers not work if you can't prove that you own the MP3 file you're trying to play.

There is a lot on EFF about it, but this link explains it pretty well, I think:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDCP

/vjl/

[Nermal]

ug.. not another switch of display connectors. DVI, ADC, VGA, etc... to many!

Don't forget DB-15! (I got a beige G3 yesterday and guess which connector it uses) :rolleyes:

[Ja Di ksw]

This has got to be the worst move Apple could have made. HDCP is the MPAA's wet dream, as it will regulate what people can and can not view on their monitor. It's like having your speakers not work if you can't prove that you own the MP3 file you're trying to play.

There is a lot on EFF about it, but this link explains it pretty well, I think:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDCP

/vjl/

Darn, another hurdle to jump over if I want to commit a crime :rolleyes:

Oh wait, I don't steal my stuff. Nevermind, I don't care.

[blackpeter]

UDI will support HDCP (High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection)...

Weak...

From Wikipedia:

HDCP is licensed by Digital Content Protection, LLC. In addition to paying fees, licensees agree to limit the capabilities of their products. High-definition digital video content is restricted to DVD quality on non-HDCP video outputs. DVD-Audio content is restricted to DAT quality on non-HDCP digital audio outputs (analog audio outputs have no quality limits). Licensees cannot allow their devices to make copies of content

[stephenli]

ug.. not another switch of display connectors. DVI, ADC, VGA, etc... to many!

yes, too many
but i would be happy if they can offer something like HDMI to ADC adapter.....or HDMI to UDI to ADC adapter......
so I can connect my ADC 23" with a PS3 in full HD resolution

[After G]

Quality limits ... doesn't really matter to me.
It's not like much of the content is any good anyway.

[JoeG4]

I hate HDCP, and no, I don't have interest in being a criminal, nor have I ever, however I don't welcome the idea of my computer's parts being made in the best interests of a gigantic movie studio monopoly.

[strange days]

I hate HDCP, and no, I don't have interest in being a criminal, nor have I ever, however I don't welcome the idea of my computer's parts being made in the best interests of a gigantic movie studio monopoly.

second that, no big brother inside, please... :mad:

[Joep]

Does that mean that my brand new 30 inch Cinema display will be uncapable of displaying the HD content I bought it for?

[JFreak]

This has got to be the worst move Apple could have made.

I couldn't disagree more!

IF there will be a copy-protected standard coming (and it will for sure), then it is surely better for us to have Apple in the decision-making process. We do know already that as soon as such standard is ready to market, Steve wants to use it; look at ADC for example - was brilliant, but interoperability is even more brilliant. In the future there must not be proprietary Apple display connector, it is not the direction Steve wants to go 'cause it just will not work for them any more than it would work for us. I mean, come on, who wants to go back to the use-only-apple-branded-displays era?

Now while this connector is still years away, let's hope Apple's contribution leads to a better standard.

[JFreak]

Does that mean that my brand new 30 inch Cinema display will be uncapable of displaying the HD content I bought it for?

No. It's a DVI display and accepts a DVI data stream, it knows of nothing else. This new standard is supposed to "support DVI", so just like DVI connector is able to support analog VGA, the new standard connector should be able to stream DVI.

[JFreak]

Sounds like higher bandwidth. Remember, Apple's 30" display requires dual-link DVI connectors.

Definetely. DVI has come to the end of its capabilities, so something new must be introduced. Dual-link gives a little more time for it, but that's not enough for five years even...

[Fukui]

Does that mean that my brand new 30 inch Cinema display will be uncapable of displaying the HD content I bought it for?
Thats right, and on any computer/HDTV box using this connector.

Its nice when an industry has absolutely no trust of their customers... I have no hope the U.S government will do anything about this, as evidenced by thier daft handling of the credit card companies.

[elmimmo]

Acoording to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDCP) (and I checked there because I also suspected it), DVI does support HDPC. Either this piece of news is missing info, or they are creating yet another damn plug to do exactly the same things, which sucks.

[Fukui]

This new standard is supposed to "support DVI", so just like DVI connector is able to support analog VGA, the new standard connector should be able to stream DVI.
The new standard is backward compatible with DVI, but this connector is for also for encrypted streams, and current DVI monitors do not support the encrypted stream, so if the previous poster tries to watch HDTV from a protected source (maybe a Blueray or HD-DVD player) on his 30-incher, it will downgrade the stream to 480p... unless you use the "DVI MAGIC" converter, but then those would probably be outlawed at some point.:o

[Lacero]

...DVI has come to the end of its capabilities <snip> Dual-link gives a little more time for it, but that's not enough for five years even...
30" display ought to be enough for anybody.

[elmimmo]

The new standard is backward compatible with DVI, but this connector is for also for encrypted streams, and current DVI monitors do not support the encrypted stream, so if the previous poster tries to watch HDTV from a protected source (maybe a Blueray or HD-DVD player) on his 30-incher, it will downgrade the stream to 480p... unless you use the "DVI MAGIC" converter, but then those would probably be outlawed at some point.:o

I hope you see the incongruence in your statement: the purpose of DVI MAGIC is to remove encrytion from DVI signals, hence DVI does support HDPC, and there are indeed DVI monitors that already support that encryption.

[Platform]

So, this will only replace VGA and not DVI?

I tought that DVI and HDMI were replacing VGA now....:o

[Fukui]

I hope you see the incongruence in your statement: the purpose of DVI MAGIC is to remove encrytion from DVI signals, hence DVI does support HDPC, and there are indeed DVI monitors that already support that encryption.
But if the point of including the new encryption is to prevent you from not using un-approved monitors and ripping the HD source, then why would they let you just blatantly unscramble it and... grab the HD source? (Wouldn't the MPAA minions lobby the law-makers and pass a law making something like DVI MAGIC no longer legal?)

I'm not saying your wrong, but it kind of makes the HDCP thing totally toothless. (Im happy if that is so.)

[Platform]

30" display ought to be enough for anybody.

Wonder how long it will last this time :p

[LethalWolfe]

IIRC, HDCP is supported over DVI but not all DVI devices support HDCP. The device has to have the HDCP "chip"


But if the point of including the new encryption is to prevent you from not using un-approved monitors and ripping the HD source, then why would they let you just blatantly unscramble it and... grab the HD source? (Wouldn't the MPAA minions lobby the law-makers and pass a law making something like DVI MAGIC no longer legal?)

I'm not saying your wrong, but it kind of makes the HDCP thing totally toothless. (Im happy if that is so.)

The thing w/HDCP is that both devices (ex. the TV and the HiDef DVD player) continuously send encrypted messages back and forth verifying they are both "legit" devices. If the one device cannot verify the other then an you don't get an HD signal. And the "list" of approved devices can be updated by content providers by embedding data in HiDef DVDs or HDTV signals. So if you have a "magic box" that tricks your HiDef DVD player into sending an HD signal into your analog i/o HDTV content providers can get a hold of a copy of the "magic box", find out what encryption keys it's spoofing, and invalidate those keys in an update hidden in, for example, the "X-men 5" DVD. Once you pop that DVD into your player the player will update, recognize your "magic box" is using no longer valid keys and no more HD signal for you.


Lethal

[.Andy]

Darn, another hurdle to jump over if I want to commit a crime :rolleyes:

Oh wait, I don't steal my stuff. Nevermind, I don't care.
Who are you going to complain to if your computer erroneously decides that the data you wish to view is pirated?

Treating everyone as a criminal is patronising and an insult to customers.

[Analog Kid]

Licensees cannot allow their devices to make copies of content
Not good. So much for fair use...

[Analog Kid]

Who are you going to complain to if your computer erroneously decides that the data you wish to view is pirated?

Treating everyone as a criminal is patronising and an insult to customers.
I agree. We've become a consumer peasantry. Cogs in the machine that can't be trusted otherwise.

That aside, this doesn't seem to be a very forward looking standard. 10 years and twice the resolution just doesn't seem to be enough. Twice the resolution doesn't seem to be enough for 10 years either...

[winmacguy]

Damn Lacero do you just have a computer online to the Macrumors main page and hit refresh every ten seconds?:p
I'd say that would be a 'Yes';)

[Platform]

I'd say that would be a 'Yes';)

Nop, he has a tame monkey that clicks for him :p

[Choppaface]

this had better not turn into something as useless as ADC by the time theyre done

[zami]

Not another expensive Apple flop please. Last month I had to spend £30 on an ADC to DVI connector (PowerMac G4 to Samsung 930BF display) and then cross London to the Lynx depot to collect it. The congestion charge was £8 plus the diesel plus THREE hours driving.

Never again, and all this caused by Apple's megalomaniacal desire to impose a standard doomed to failure. ADC doesn't even connect as firmly as the standard DVI.

Firewire however is a vastly superior standard and should have been kept as an alternative for the iPods.

[LethalWolfe]

I agree. We've become a consumer peasantry. Cogs in the machine that can't be trusted otherwise.

That aside, this doesn't seem to be a very forward looking standard. 10 years and twice the resolution just doesn't seem to be enough. Twice the resolution doesn't seem to be enough for 10 years either...

Honestly I think we're starting to get close to the point of diminishing returns. Physically, there's a limit to how big a monitor or TV someone can fit in their office or home and w/in that given size there's only so many pixels that can be resolved by the human eye. For example, making the iPod's screen 1280*720 is pointless because the screen is so small. And I've read in a couple of places that given the average American TV size and viewing distance most people won't notice a big difference between HD and SD because they sit so far back from their "small" TVs that much of the increased resolution of HD is too small to notice.


Lethal

[Chundles]

Honestly I think we're starting to get close to the point of diminishing returns. Physically, there's a limit to how big a monitor or TV someone can fit in their office or home and w/in that given size there's only so many pixels that can be resolved by the human eye. For example, making the iPod's screen 1280*720 is pointless because the screen is so small. And I've read in a couple of places that given the average American TV size and viewing distance most people won't notice a big difference between HD and SD because they sit so far back from their "small" TVs that much of the increased resolution of HD is too small to notice.


Lethal

That's where we get into the realm of resolution independence. Where the objects on the screen are the same size but there are more pixels in that area. The pixel no longer becomes a measurement.

You have say a 1024x768 screen on the iPod but all the text, images etc are the same size as they are now but almost photo-realistic. The text looks as though it's printed, the images are much richer and the videos can be a higher resolution.

On a computer it would be amazing, you could zoom in and out of pages without losing any quality. Resolution independence will be a part of 10.5 and will go very nicely with new very high res screens.

[Bonte]

Does that mean that my brand new 30 inch Cinema display will be uncapable of displaying the HD content I bought it for?

Don't think that wil be a problem, it uses a dual DVI connection to overcome the limitations. Problem is the current crop of HD TV's that have only one. At the moment its very hard to present full HD (1920 pixels) from a computer to a TV setup and thats what they are working on with this.

[LethalWolfe]

You have say a 1024x768 screen on the iPod but all the text, images etc are the same size as they are now but almost photo-realistic. The text looks as though it's printed, the images are much richer and the videos can be a higher resolution.

But what's the point of playing back a super-high res video on something the size of the iPod? Is someone going to watch the whole video at 100x magnification?

Is there going to be a market for 17" or 19" monitors running at 5760*3600 in 2010?


Lethal

[LethalWolfe]

Don't think that wil be a problem, it uses a dual DVI connection to overcome the limitations. Problem is the current crop of HD TV's that have only one. At the moment its very hard to present full HD (1920 pixels) from a computer to a TV setup and thats what they are working on with this.

Joep's concern is w/the HDCP (and the Apple 30' is not HDCP compliant AFAIK) not the bandwidth required to drive his monitor.


Lethal

[MacQuest]

Does that mean that my brand new 30 inch Cinema display will be uncapable of displaying the HD content I bought it for?

No. Just INcapable of it.

;)

[1984]

Who are you going to complain to if your computer erroneously decides that the data you wish to view is pirated?

Treating everyone as a criminal is patronising and an insult to customers.


Exactly. A lot of people build HTPCs these days. In fact, ReplayTV will be selling a package containing an HDTV tuner card and their scheduling software. With UDI and HDCP no one will be able to play back what they record. Right now you can buy a DVR to replace your VCR to record programs off TV. I'm sure that in the future a message will pop up every time you want to play it back saying there will be a $1.99 charge to do so. Why is it that every time technology advances they cripple it with restrictions? One step forward, two steps back.

Oh, and so much for the Mac mini "TiVo-killer" rumor, huh?

[eXan]

by providing added bandwidth at least twice the capability of the largest displays today.

The final specification is expected to be finalized in the second quarter of 2006.

60 inch Apple Cinema Display! 5120x3200 pixels!!! :eek:

[plinkoman]

this is beyond the point of being rediculous.

if all this drm crap is true, i'm going to buy a nice hd dvi display, buy all the movies i want on dvd, and NEVER buy any bluy-ray hdcp garbage. you want my money, don't treat me like a criminal... :rolleyes:

[RedTomato]

'30 inches should be enough for anyone'

Not if you're talking about projectors.

With home projectors where you sit a bit closer to the screen than you would in a cinema, the pixelling on them can be quite noticeable.

1280 x 720 projectors are available for less than £700, and prices are falling all the time and resolution going up quite steeply, especially at the high end.

Also the new digital cinema projectors need ultrahigh bandwith. I don't know much about them, but it seems connector bandwith is becoming a problem there too.

..RedTomato..

[gnasher729]

Does that mean that my brand new 30 inch Cinema display will be uncapable of displaying the HD content I bought it for?

I don't know about the 30 inch Cinema display, but most computer monitors don't have an HDCP connector. If the Cinema display doesn't have one, and if your software refuses to display on a monitor without an HDCP connector, which for example a BlueRay DVD decoder in the future most certainly will, then it won't play.

Just wondering: What HD content did you buy?

[generik]

I don't know about the 30 inch Cinema display, but most computer monitors don't have an HDCP connector. If the Cinema display doesn't have one, and if your software refuses to display on a monitor without an HDCP connector, which for example a BlueRay DVD decoder in the future most certainly will, then it won't play.

Just wondering: What HD content did you buy?

The real irony is despite all these draconian measures, some hacker (by definition) will manage to crack the protection and release these movies to the P2P networks in all of their HD goodness, and I will simply not pay for it, pirated it, and watch it on my Free (as in libre) monitor.

Why should I:

1) Spend money
2) Buy "special" magic hardware
3) get treated like some croak?

If I am going to spend money I expect to see the red carpet rolled out, no less!

[gnasher729]

Who are you going to complain to if your computer erroneously decides that the data you wish to view is pirated?

Treating everyone as a criminal is patronising and an insult to customers.

That has nothing to do with HDCP. If your computer could figure out that the movie you want to see is pirated, it will do whatever it is programmed to do, but that has nothing to do with HDCP.

What the movie industry is afraid of, is that some pirate or some enterprising individual could build some hardware that grabs the video signal that comes out of the graphics card, record it on a harddisk, and convert it back to H.264, for example. If you had that hardware, then you could take any _original_ BlueRay DVD, play it once, record the data, reencode it again and start making pirated copies.

With HDCP, the graphics card sends out encrypted data, and the monitor decrypts it, so nobody can grab the signal between graphics card and monitor. If your BlueRay DVD player finds that your graphics card doesn't have an HDCP chip, then it won't play, no matter whether your DVD is original or pirated. If your graphics card has an HDCP chip, then the graphics card will check that the monitor has an HDCP chip as well, and if it doesn't, the BlueRay DVD player won't play. If both graphics card and monitor have HDCP chips, then the graphics driver will report the public key of the monitor to the BlueRay DVD player. The player will have a list of "cracked" devices, and if your monitor is on the list, it won't play.

Since every single HDCP chip in the world has a different public key, your monitor shouldn't end up on a list of cracked devices. If it does, I guess it is the monitor manufacturer that you should complain to. There are many other ways how a BlueRay DVD might be pirated, and HDCP cannot do anything about those.

[CrazyWingman]

Darn, another hurdle to jump over if I want to commit a crime :rolleyes:

Oh wait, I don't steal my stuff. Nevermind, I don't care.

No! It's another hurdle to jump over if you want to fairly use the content you already purchased. Not all reasons to move media from one format to another are illegal.

[gnasher729]

No! It's another hurdle to jump over if you want to fairly use the content you already purchased. Not all reasons to move media from one format to another are illegal.

HDCP prevents one very specific method of copying contents that has nothing to do with fair use: By grabbing the video signal between graphics card and monitor. Of course it is very annoying if an expensive monitor that is quite capable of displaying HD content won't work because HDCP is missing on the monitor, but this has nothing to do with "fair use": No HDCP, and you cannot use HD content at all, whether fair or unfair.

To be sure, there will be other measures that will prevent both illegal copying and "fair use", but HDCP isn't one of them.

[asphalt-proof]

Darn, another hurdle to jump over if I want to commit a crime :rolleyes:

Oh wait, I don't steal my stuff. Nevermind, I don't care.


Hmmm, Maybe you would change your mind if SOny et al decided that it was criminal to play your DVD on more than one computer/TV in your home. This is not farfetched. Fair use is not criminal... yet but they are pushing very hard to make it so.

[Chundles]

OK, my Dad just bought a nice new Panasonic Viera 42" plasma screen. It has HDMI input on the back. What this is saying is that this screen, despite the thousands of dollars Dad has just thrown down for it, might not be able to play HD content from the new generation players?

Well that's just plain stupid.

[CreepyArcade]

-

[AtHomeBoy_2000]

Heard HANA was also mulling making Firewire standard for HD content delivery.
Electronics, Media Giants Form HD Alliance (http://www.technewsworld.com/story/NQsEIZL16wAEXH/Electronics-Media-Giants-Form-HD-Alliance.xhtml)]

I really hope firewire wins out. It would seem that being able to conect all your multi-media players together using Firewire cables would be easier. However, maybe I am readign this article wrong. It seems that UDI will be mainly a computer to monitor thing wile Firewire will be for entertainment centers.

[Lacero]

60 inch Apple Cinema Display! 5120x3200 pixels!!! :eek:
That would be quadrupling of the bandwidth, not a doubling. :p



Here's to the Crazy Ones http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=35452 (http://www.uriah.com/apple-qt/movies/think-different.mov)

[dernhelm]

I heard about this a while back and figured it was really just a pipe dream. Would be nice to see this come to reality, especially as TVs and computers continue to merge.

[ZorPrime]

The real irony is despite all these draconian measures, some hacker (by definition) will manage to crack the protection and release these movies to the P2P networks in all of their HD goodness, and I will simply not pay for it, pirated it, and watch it on my Free (as in libre) monitor.

You have a good point but the problem will be "hackers" are going to have to attack the media on two fronts, maybe three, all simultaneously: 1) Embedded chips in the HD monitors. 2) HDCP (which has supposedly already been cracked by a chryptologist). 3) Then there's the OS, if viewing HD on a PC.

http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/hardware/hdcp-vista.ars

LethalWolf excellently explained, in post #36, how the fundamental nature of these new HD and DRM technologies work. It'll be a pain updating the hacks because, unlike now, the content owners will have a better means of staying on top of things. All of these things need to be cracked, in order to get true HighDef. So, it'll be possible but it won't be easy through time but then again... no security measure is 100%. :o


Why should I:

1) Spend money
2) Buy "special" magic hardware
3) get treated like some croak?

If I am going to spend money I expect to see the red carpet rolled out, no less!

I'm not going to touch that. :) :o

[ShavenYak]

Ok so we supposedly can't play HD content that is not encrypted? What if I use the new Panasonic AG-HVX200 HD video recorder to produce my own content? It won't have an encrypted signal I assume... does this mean someone who purchased this $6000+ cam to shoot HD won't even be able to display it at full resolution or even edit it on a PC? Correct me if I am wrong...

Ok, you're corrected.

The point of HDCP is to prevent you from making copies of stuff that is encrypted, not to prevent you from watching stuff that isn't encrypted. Basically, the idea is that you have to have an HDCP-capable display device to view the content. If your display device isn't HDCP-capable, your BluRay player will drop back to DVD resolution. The HDCP license agreement ensures that no device with an HDCP input will be capable of recording the decrypted video stream - if it does and "Big Brother" finds out, a future software update will tell your BluRay player that the device is not legit, and it will no longer output video to it.

This will not affect your $6k camcorder. If it has Firewire, of course you will be able to dump video you recorded into your Mac to edit. If it has an HDMI output, it will not bother enforcing HDCP on video you recorded, so even if your BluRay player has revolted against your plasma TV (because some hacker built a pirate recorder box that spoofed your TV's serial number), you'll still be able to watch the HD video you shot of your cousin's third birthday party and see the glorious high-resolution Thomas the Tank Engine cake smeared all over his face.

[ZorPrime]

OK, my Dad just bought a nice new Panasonic Viera 42" plasma screen. It has HDMI input on the back. What this is saying is that this screen, despite the thousands of dollars Dad has just thrown down for it, might not be able to play HD content from the new generation players?

Well that's just plain stupid.

Yeah that bites. :mad: Does his Plasma with HDMI have HDCP support? I got a 1080p Mitsubishi earlier this year and its HDMI interface has HDCP. :) Hopefully, I'll be in the clear... early adoption of HD is like gambling. :o

[Super Dave]

Darn, another hurdle to jump over if I want to commit a crime :rolleyes:

Oh wait, I don't steal my stuff. Nevermind, I don't care.

Oh how long I wait to hear comments like this. So good!

David :cool:

[dernhelm]

Hmmm, Maybe you would change your mind if SOny et al decided that it was criminal to play your DVD on more than one computer/TV in your home. This is not farfetched. Fair use is not criminal... yet but they are pushing very hard to make it so.

Wrong. Fair use is criminal. Already. You can't rip a version of a movie you legally own to display it on a an iPod that you legally own for your own enjoyment. In every court of law that is fair use. But the DMCA makes it illegal.

[dernhelm]

30" display ought to be enough for anybody.

Hmmm. Sounds vaguely familiar. Anyone still running 640KB of RAM? :D

[Peace]

Oh how long I wait to hear comments like this. So good!

David :cool:


I hope thats a joke because if it isnt its a sad statement..

I'm not any kind of "terrorist" but I certainly dont want the government tapping my phone line in case I "might be" by their thinking..:eek:

This smells of BIG BROTHER at it's finest.

[Super Dave]

Hmmm, Maybe you would change your mind if SOny et al decided that it was criminal to play your DVD on more than one computer/TV in your home. This is not farfetched. Fair use is not criminal... yet but they are pushing very hard to make it so.

Who's "they?" I'm not being a jerk, but seriously.

I use DRMed stuff all the time. I have NEVER run into one of its limits. I have an iPod yes, I knew that when I started buying music from Apple. If you want to use another player, you use another store. Either way, the DRM ain't bad.

[Edit: Dernhelm with the post on DVDs is correct, that kinda stuff is pretty frustrating. Why can't I rip a DVD? Companies which prevent fair use through DRM should be forced to make a ripper that wraps a new type of DRM onto it. DVDs should have serial numbers and each one should only be able to be ripped like once or twice.]

David :cool:

[CaptainHaddock]

As someone who does not live in the US, I think it sucks that the whole computing industry has to be dragged down and locked up because of a bunch of easily bribed US Congressmen. Why can't the rest of us have a proper HDMI standard without any anti-customer "features"?

[Super Dave]

I hope thats a joke because if it isnt its a sad statement..

I'm not any kind of "terrorist" but I certainly dont want the government tapping my phone line in case I "might be" by their thinking..:eek:

This smells of BIG BROTHER at it's finest.

Wow. That was totally disproportionate to what I said.

Dude, we're talking about DRM, not illegal surveilance. There's a huge difference between not being able to burn 8 identical CDs to sell to my friends, and not being able to talk to my friends without the government listening in.

David :cool:

PS- Maybe I just don't understand the connection because I'm Canadian. Surveilance is a non-issue here, though I am terrified of what's going on south of the border.

[Super Dave]

As someone who does not live in the US, I think it sucks that the whole computing industry has to be dragged down and locked up because of a bunch of easily bribed US Congressmen. Why can't the rest of us have a proper HDMI standard without any anti-customer "features"?

Because if we did, we'd pirate it at rampant rates so that the industry would go down the tubes. No, not soon, but eventually.

Maybe some of the 30+ crowd don't know how to rip a CD yet or get it off of the internet, but as a 24 year old, I know only about 8 people who don't download things illegally as their primary method of getting music. Of those, only 1 does it for reasons other than that they are honest Christians. Heck, half of my "Christian" friends steal music without thinking twice.

When people my age get to be at the high end of the age demographics, nothing is going to change except an entire new generation of people will be around ALL ripping music and movies.

Oh yeah, and average bandwidth on the internet is going up. Do you think that trend is going to change? Movies are next. It's only a matter of time.

Realistically there is a reason for DRM. I may not like how it's done (in the case of DVDs) or I may not even notice it (Apple's FairPlay), but there is a reason for it.

David :cool:

[Peace]

Wow. That was totally disproportionate to what I said.

Dude, we're talking about DRM, not illegal surveilance. There's a huge difference between not being able to burn 8 identical CDs to sell to my friends, and not being able to talk to my friends without the government listening in.

David :cool:

PS- Maybe I just don't understand the connection because I'm Canadian. Surveilance is a non-issue here, though I am terrified of what's going on south of the border.

Perhaps it was disproportionate but folks south of your border are getting slammed with all kinds of "rights" abuses etc...We're sort of hesitant with these type of announcements..

[SiliconAddict]

The PC world hasn't (for the most part) switched over to DVI, what makes us think they'll switch to this?

Dell will be using VGA for the next ten years. :rolleyes:


Umm dude I just rolled out a Dell desktop with DVI yesterday. :rolleyes: Hooked it up to the execs 17" Dell LCD.

[SiliconAddict]

This has got to be the worst move Apple could have made. HDCP is the MPAA's wet dream, as it will regulate what people can and can not view on their monitor. It's like having your speakers not work if you can't prove that you own the MP3 file you're trying to play

/vjl/


Apple has no choice in the matter. They either use HDMI and HDCP or the MPAA puts all their backing behind Vista which will support this out of the box.

[SiliconAddict]

Because if we did, we'd pirate it at rampant rates so that the industry would go down the tubes. No, not soon, but eventually.

Maybe some of the 30+ crowd don't know how to rip a CD yet or get it off of the internet, but as a 24 year old, I know only about 8 people who don't download things illegally as their primary method of getting music. Of those, only 1 does it for reasons other than that they are honest Christians. Heck, half of my "Christian" friends steal music without thinking twice.

When people my age get to be at the high end of the age demographics, nothing is going to change except an entire new generation of people will be around ALL ripping music and movies.

Oh yeah, and average bandwidth on the internet is going up. Do you think that trend is going to change? Movies are next. It's only a matter of time.

Realistically there is a reason for DRM. I may not like how it's done (in the case of DVDs) or I may not even notice it (Apple's FairPlay), but there is a reason for it.

David :cool:

Dave you just don't get it.

[Super Dave]

Who are you going to complain to if your computer erroneously decides that the data you wish to view is pirated?

Treating everyone as a criminal is patronising and an insult to customers.

Sorta. I worked in retail for 6 years before doing web design to pay the bills through university. Every night when I was leaving, the security guard would check my bag. I didn't like it, but I put up with it. What should the company do if the majority of theft is always internal?

Further, 90% of my friends steal music and don't think twice about it. How about your friends? All it took was the ability to get away with it and their ability to say "everyone does it." Sure these same people won't rob a bank, but why? Because it is morally sanctioned, and because they wouldn't get away with it. Moral relativism has corrupted the minds of the contemporary world so much that theft is considered "ok."

Nonetheless, if you want to blame DRM on someone, you're right to blame it on the companies. After all, the thieves may be the reason that the companies added a lock, but the company itself still had a choice. But ask yourself "what would I do?" Would you be allowing everyone to steal your stuff, knowing that—as the younger generation got older and the old people who don't understand the technology die off—it would only get worse?

If you want to complain about unfair DRM (DVD's inability to make ANY rips), fine. But if you want to complain about DRM as a concept at all, come up with a better model. Trust obviously doesn't work, as evident by the rampant piracy of music. So what's the better option?

An immanent critique (one that makes no suggestions) is not useful here. What is needed are suggestions for a better model of DRM that will be both fair to those of us who are not crooks, while at the same time keeping those who will steal whatever they can get away with under wraps so that pricing does not skyrocket.

Ideas people!

David :cool:

[Super Dave]

Dave you just don't get it.

Then explain it to me. I'm totally all about conversation. Read my previous post, and let me know what your suggestions are for a fair DRM model.

David :cool:

[ZorPrime]

Wrong. Fair use is criminal. Already. You can't rip a version of a movie you legally own to display it on a an iPod that you legally own for your own enjoyment. In every court of law that is fair use. But the DMCA makes it illegal.

huh? :confused: I've studied (US Copyright) law and your comment is wrong. ;)

W. Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette and Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studio, Inc. are precedents that haven't been overturned... there may have been adaptation and modification of the exercise clause of the 1st Amendment but Fair Use is Protected Speech and is Legal, at least here in America. ;) :o

Edit/Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer or advocate of "piracy" and my comments do not constitute any legal advice or others point of view because I have no clue. :o

[Super Dave]

huh? :confused: I've studied law and your comment is wrong. ;)

W. Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette and Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studio, Inc. are precedents that haven't been overturned... there may have been adaptation and modification of the exercise clause of the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution but Fair Use is Protected Speech and is Legal, at least here in America. ;) :o

Are you saying it's legal to rip a DVD? I didn't quite follow your argument because I'm not familiar with the court case. That would be awesome if it was.

David :cool:

[devman]

OK, my Dad just bought a nice new Panasonic Viera 42" plasma screen. It has HDMI input on the back. What this is saying is that this screen, despite the thousands of dollars Dad has just thrown down for it, might not be able to play HD content from the new generation players?


Not necessarily. Many (most?) TVs like that have HDCP now. Check with the manufacturer to find out.

[Peace]

This whole concept sounds to me like Apple is planning on new LCD's to go along with their new media center and they want to make sure we don't rip dvd's and/or watch illegal copies.

[asphalt-proof]

Who's "they?" I'm not being a jerk, but seriously.

I use DRMed stuff all the time. I have NEVER run into one of its limits. I have an iPod yes, I knew that when I started buying music from Apple. If you want to use another player, you use another store. Either way, the DRM ain't bad.

[Edit: Dernhelm with the post on DVDs is correct, that kinda stuff is pretty frustrating. Why can't I rip a DVD? Companies which prevent fair use through DRM should be forced to make a ripper that wraps a new type of DRM onto it. DVDs should have serial numbers and each one should only be able to be ripped like once or twice.]

David :cool:

"They" would be the media companies, the RIAA and the MPAA. Remember the rootkit installed by Sony or the 'rumor' that Sony was going to install a authenticating device that would tie a game to a specific console (so you couldn't sell it back or lend it to a friend). I wasn't referring to Apple per se and I'm not sure where the above comment came from. These technologies treat us a priori as criminals. It would be akin to Ford putting technology in a car that prevented others from driving it (even if you gave them the key willingly.) Or forcing you to buy only their brand of gas (at an inflated cost of course).

[CreepyArcade]

Thanks for the correction ShavenYak.

So if I understand correctly now, the standard will allow unencrypted content to be viewed with no problem but encrypted content will have limits to help prevent duplication.

[SiliconAddict]

Then explain it to me. I'm totally all about conversation. Read my previous post, and let me know what your suggestions are for a fair DRM model.

David :cool:


The advent of P2P music sharing occurred not because people could do it. Not because there wasn't a legal alternative to P2P. But because of price. Sorry but $12.99 vs. .99 is somewhat of a no brainer. (Even now when you consider that iTMS only caters to iPods only....)
What is going on with movies, music, and books is no different then prohibition. Doubtless that there were people like you who believed that following the rules is the only way. Thankfully society stepped in and forced the issue otherwise we would all be drinking root beers instead right now. Society is doing the same thing with big business right now. Its basically saying F-you to the outrageous prices being forced on the consumers. Remember how we were told that the advent of CD tech would bring about lower music prices. Well last time I looked that didn't happen. What did happen and is happening is a backlash against greedy businesses. And right now we as consumers are at war with the *AA's. If you don't think this is a war wake up and look at the number of battles being fought the EFF. The amount of legislation being introduced that is so anti-consumer that its not even funny. This isn't about the poor *AA. This is about companies that want to squeeze every possible cent out of the consumer. You can rest assure that the *AA's will not be happy until you are charged every time you view, listen, read their content.

Please read this http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/analog-hole.ars

If that doesn't get your hackles up I don't know what will.

[ZorPrime]

Are you saying it's legal to rip a DVD? I didn't quite follow your argument because I'm not familiar with the court case. That would be awesome if it was.

David :cool:

It depends on how you (not you per se but the federal law defines "rip") define "rip" and what the "rip" would be used for... ;) backing up something via a device, let's say a PC, doesn't necessarily restrict you to the media from which the original resides or violate fair use. In other words, "how" something is backed up doesn't necessarily infringe on copyright; but if one were to take said content and share it via a P2P or something like that, then that would violate Fair Use and Copyright. Some argue one is limited to "personal use" and therefore cannot allow others to see or use the "backup". It's a grey area. :o

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer or advocate of "piracy" and my comments do not constitute any legal advice or others point of view because I have no clue.

[Super Dave]

"They" would be the media companies, the RIAA and the MPAA. Remember the rootkit installed by Sony or the 'rumor' that Sony was going to install a authenticating device that would tie a game to a specific console (so you couldn't sell it back or lend it to a friend). I wasn't referring to Apple per se and I'm not sure where the above comment came from. These technologies treat us a priori as criminals. It would be akin to Ford putting technology in a car that prevented others from driving it (even if you gave them the key willingly.) Or forcing you to buy only their brand of gas (at an inflated cost of course).

Fair enough regarding the rootkit. I keep thinking everyone is friendly like Apple. Sony's methods leave a lot to be desired.

Also, I mentioned in an edit that I don't agree with unfair DRM like DVD encoding, so I'm not advocating DRM, but rather fair DRM. Ultimately what I'm saying is that I think there is an excessive paranoia when it comes to DRM rather than a rational one by one assessment.

David :cool:

[asphalt-proof]

The advent of P2P music sharing occurred not because people could do it. Not because there wasn't a legal alternative to P2P. But because of price. Sorry but $12.99 vs. .99 is somewhat of a no brainer. What is going on with movies, music, and books is no different then prohibition. Doubtless that there were people like you who believed that following the rules is the only way. Thankfully society stepped in and forced the issue otherwise we would all be drinking root beers instead right now. Society is doing the same thing with big business right now. Its basically saying F-you to the outrageous prices being forced on the consumers. Remember how we were told that the advent of CD tech would bring about lower music prices. Well last time I looked that didn't happen. What did happen and is happening is a backlash against greedy businesses. And right now we as consumers are at war with the *AA's. If you don't think this is a war wake up and look at the number of battles being fought the EFF. The amount of legislation being introduced that is so anti-consumer that its not even funny. This isn't about the poor *AA. This is about companies that want to squeeze every possible cent out of the consumer. You can rest assure that the *AA's will not be happy until you are charged every time you view, listen, read their content.

Please read this http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/analog-hole.ars

If that doesn't get your hackles up I don't know what will.


Nicely stated. I think what is most distrubing is that with advances in technology we will be increasingly limited to only content they want us to access. We see this already in the bands they decide to promote and end up with vanilla soundalikes. I understand that they want to make a profit and cater to the lowest common denominator but with this technology, they can make it so that you can only listen to their kind of music on their players (or movies etc.) Its a form of censorship. It sounds Orwellian but its an easy way to lock in consumers.

[Porchland]

This has got to be the worst move Apple could have made. HDCP is the MPAA's wet dream, as it will regulate what people can and can not view on their monitor. It's like having your speakers not work if you can't prove that you own the MP3 file you're trying to play.

There is a lot on EFF about it, but this link explains it pretty well, I think:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDCP

/vjl/

And this is bad how? DRM helps movie, TV and record execs sleep better at night and makes them more likely to allow content like episodes of "The Office" available over iTunes. You think that would have happened if Apple's DRM for the rollout of "Lost" and "Desperate Housewives" had set off a huge round of piracy? It didn't happen, and now the content is going to start coming in droves.

Can you get it for free? No. Content providers don't make money by giving it to you for free, and they're not going to make it available if the DRM doesn't work.

The anti-DRM crowd continues to mystify me.

[asphalt-proof]

Fair enough regarding the rootkit. I keep thinking everyone is friendly like Apple. Sony's methods leave a lot to be desired.

Also, I mentioned in an edit that I don't agree with unfair DRM like DVD encoding, so I'm not advocating DRM, but rather fair DRM. Ultimately what I'm saying is that I think there is an excessive paranoia when it comes to DRM rather than a rational one by one assessment.

David :cool:
I agree about a rational DRM idea. The problem is the ever escalating war between the media companies and the hackers. One suggestion that was bandied about a few years ago was to do away with DRM altogether, implement a tax on your internet access, and make content free or very cheap. This tax would be distributed to the media company. There are a lot of problems associated with this model but it is an alternative that does not treat consumers as criminals, make onerous demands in order to access or ensure the safety of your media (backing up etc.).

[Super Dave]

The advent of P2P music sharing occurred not because people could do it. Not because there wasn't a legal alternative to P2P. But because of price. Sorry but $12.99 vs. .99 is somewhat of a no brainer. (Even now when you consider that iTMS only caters to iPods only....)
What is going on with movies, music, and books is no different then prohibition. Doubtless that there were people like you who believed that following the rules is the only way. Thankfully society stepped in and forced the issue otherwise we would all be drinking root beers instead right now. Society is doing the same thing with big business right now. Its basically saying F-you to the outrageous prices being forced on the consumers. Remember how we were told that the advent of CD tech would bring about lower music prices. Well last time I looked that didn't happen. What did happen and is happening is a backlash against greedy businesses. And right now we as consumers are at war with the *AA's. If you don't think this is a war wake up and look at the number of battles being fought the EFF. The amount of legislation being introduced that is so anti-consumer that its not even funny. This isn't about the poor *AA. This is about companies that want to squeeze every possible cent out of the consumer. You can rest assure that the *AA's will not be happy until you are charged every time you view, listen, read their content.

Please read this http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/analog-hole.ars

If that doesn't get your hackles up I don't know what will.

I'll read the Arst technica article later. My nephews just got here and we're going to decorate the Christmas tree.

As for the comparison to prohibition, I have this to say. I don't advocate purchase of music because it is required by the law (indeed here in Canada some have suggested that recent legislation has made piracy legal.... it hasn't), but rather because it is required by a man of moral conscience.

First, let us not digress with questions of whether or not the labels treat artists fairly. I am not a record label executive and have very little power in that arena; boycotting always hurts those who are poorest (the artist) before it hurts the rich (the labels).

So, if we agree with this, the question becomes "is it fair or considerate or yes, even legal to pirate music?" The answer is no. The artist created the work expecting to be compensated. This is their livelihood in many cases. So if labels start increasing prices are options are not:
A. buy music at outrageous prices
B. don't buy music, and force labels to lower their prices thereby
C. steal music and expect that the labels will lower their price as a result.

The efficacy of the above listed methods does not justify the means. C is not an option for a moral human being. We therefore have the options of A and B. I chose a combination of both during the era of outrageous pricing. I bought some music, but a lot less than I would have otherwise. When you suggest that C is a legitimate option what you are saying is that people should not be paid for their labour, simply because we do not agreed with how they are being paid. I don't think that argument really holds up.

I am interested in hearing your reply though.

David :cool:

[asphalt-proof]

And this is bad how? DRM helps movie, TV and record execs sleep better at night and makes them more likely to allow content like episodes of "The Office" available over iTunes. You think that would have happened if Apple's DRM for the rollout of "Lost" and "Desperate Housewives" had set off a huge round of piracy? It didn't happen, and now the content is going to start coming in droves.

Can you get it for free? No. Content providers don't make money by giving it to you for free, and they're not going to make it available if the DRM doesn't work.

The anti-DRM crowd continues to mystify me.


The question I have is how many hoops are you willing to go through to ensure that the media you purchase is available to you whenever you want it? For instance, if your harddrive crashed you may be required to re-purchase the media. Or if you got a new computer. Remember, the media content people do not want you to be able to backup the items that you bought. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised in the not-to-distant future if everytime you tried to play an episode of Lost, your back account would automatically be charged a $1.99.

[Peace]

I am not a record label executive and have very little power in that arena; boycotting always hurts those who are poorest (the artist) before it hurts the rich (the labels).



David :cool:

The ARTIST are poor?..
I'll remember that when I see one driving down the road in their new Mercedes going to their mansions.

[Super Dave]

I agree about a rational DRM idea. The problem is the ever escalating war between the media companies and the hackers. One suggestion that was bandied about a few years ago was to do away with DRM altogether, implement a tax on your internet access, and make content free or very cheap. This tax would be distributed to the media company. There are a lot of problems associated with this model but it is an alternative that does not treat consumers as criminals, make onerous demands in order to access or ensure the safety of your media (backing up etc.).

Not to mention, we already tried something like that in Canada. Every blank CD bought has a few cents taxed onto it. That's fine. But every iPod had $15-25 on it, not so nice. The problem is how to compensate each artist proportionally. It' impossible.

I'm currently sending away for a rebate of $15 because they canned the iPod levy and are offering people's money back.

Ultimately I think it is FairPlay like DRM (scoff if you will) that will lead the way. With the addion of the ability to play on non-iPods, FairPlay would truly be fair and I think few people would run up against its invisible walls. I never have as it is.

DVD DRM is ridiculous, protected CDs REQUIRE rootkit to be effective and that's just plain wrong. Hopefully the *AAs will figure out that fair DRM would quiet even the most stout advocate of digital rights.

David :cool:

[cubist]

second that, no big brother inside, please... :mad:

Third. We need something to protect OUR interests against the encroachments of Big Media. Next they'll be preventing us from reading blogs...

[Super Dave]

The ARTIST are poor?..
I'll remember that when I see one driving down the road in their new Mercedes going to their mansions.

All of them are more poor than the executives. As for my comment, not all artists are rich. My arguments clearly don't point to the rich, but to those who are not.

David :cool:

[asphalt-proof]

In many ways, I think of this discussions in terms of my car. When I purchased my car, I did so with the expectation that I could drive it where I want, lend it to whom I want, sell/trade to whom I want, and make modifications and additions/subtractions as I want. On the other hand, the media companies want to dictate on what machines you can listen, watch content on, not allow me to lend/sell to another, not allow me to make any modifications to the machine ro the content. Its not a perfect analogy of course and I make no claim that it is. But we are being sold a bill of goods when we accept that the things we purchase are not really ours to use as we see fit.

[cubist]

... The artist created the work expecting to be compensated. This is their livelihood in many cases. So if labels start increasing prices are options are not:
A. buy music at outrageous prices
B. don't buy music, and force labels to lower their prices thereby
C. steal music and expect that the labels will lower their price as a result.
...

D. Purchase music from the artist directly, and cut out the greedy, thieving, arrogant, and ultimately worthless labels.

[Peace]

Perhaps I'm getting old but I can remember when a friend would "borrow" an LP to play on his stereo..
I never heard the music business complaining about that.

Nowadays with this sort of model going on if I loaned my friend the LP there would be a black-suited dude with dark glasses standing outside just waiting to tell him he cant play it.

[asphalt-proof]

D. Purchase music from the artist directly, and cut out the greedy, thieving, arrogant, and ultimately worthless labels.


I think that would be the most viable and fair method of ensuring that and artists media is respected. Some people think its ok to download/upload content because it sticks it to the media corps.

[asphalt-proof]

Perhaps I'm getting old but I can remember when a friend would "borrow" an LP to play on his stereo..
I never heard the music business complaining about that.

Nowadays with this sort of model going on if I loaned my friend the LP there would be a black-suited dude with dark glasses standing outside just waiting to tell him he cant play it.


I just wonder when the day will come when each car will be equipped with a sensor that determines whether you have a passenger or not. If not, you can listen to your music, but if you do have a passenger, your music will not play.

[hayesk]

Perhaps I'm getting old but I can remember when a friend would "borrow" an LP to play on his stereo..
I never heard the music business complaining about that.



We didn't have the Internet to read about how the media was complaining back then. They complained. But they just couldn't do anything about it.

[hayesk]

The ARTIST are poor?..
I'll remember that when I see one driving down the road in their new Mercedes going to their mansions.

No offence, but you'd have to be an idiot if you think most artists that you hear are in this situation. The only ones that are rich are those with multiple top-10 albums.

Most artists are not rich. They're low to middle class.

[Peace]

No offence, but you'd have to be an idiot if you think most artists that you hear are in this situation. The only ones that are rich are those with multiple top-10 albums.

Most artists are not rich. They're low to middle class.

That may be true but the MPAA and RIAA seem to be more concerned about the most popular music being copied.And if the music is popular one can extrapolate from there that the artist is getting paid well.

[Super Dave]

D. Purchase music from the artist directly, and cut out the greedy, thieving, arrogant, and ultimately worthless labels.

Agreed! Love the independents.

David :cool:

[iSee]

According to this TG Daily article (http://www.tgdaily.com/2005/12/20/udisig_formation/), UDI will be the graphical interface "for the next ten years" by providing added bandwidth at least twice the capability of the largest displays today.

Twice the capability of the largest displays today?! Finally! I've really been chafing under the low-res restrictions of dual 30" cinema displays. I really, really need more!:rolleyes:

Seriously, is this really necessary? OK, I know, I know. There are those famous embarrassing quotes, like the one from IBM estimating the global market for computers at 4-5, and the one about how 640K is all the RAM anyone will ever need, etc. And whenever I get a new computer, the amount of hard drive space seems outlandish, but I always fill it up. But Moore's law doesn't really apply to pixels, does it?

I mean, you can only look at so much stuff at once. And, while no one who owns a 30" apple monitor actually complains about it, some admit to feeling a little uncomfortable about how much they need to crane their necks.

[killmoms]

It depends on how you (not you per se but the federal law defines "rip") define "rip" and what the "rip" would be used for... ;) backing up something via a device, let's say a PC, doesn't necessarily restrict you to the media from which the original resides or violate fair use. In other words, "how" something is backed up doesn't necessarily infringe on copyright; but if one were to take said content and share it via a P2P or something like that, then that would violate Fair Use and Copyright. Some argue one is limited to "personal use" and therefore cannot allow others to see or use the "backup". It's a grey area. :o

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer or advocate of "piracy" and my comments do not constitute any legal advice or others point of view.
Sorry, but you're incorrect. The DMCA de facto outlaws fair-use for materials that are protected by a technological access control measure. While fair use is still a defense to an action of copyright infringement, it is not a defense to the anti-circumvention portions of the DMCA. I wrote a paper on this recently for my Multimedia Law course, which you can read here (http://www.devlogik.com/matt/dmcapaper.pdf).

[killmoms]

Twice the capability of the largest displays today?! Finally! I've really been chafing under the low-res restrictions of dual 30" cinema displays. I really, really need more!:rolleyes:

Seriously, is this really necessary? OK, I know, I know. There are those famous embarrassing quotes, like the one from IBM estimating the global market for computers at 4-5, and the one about how 640K is all the RAM anyone will ever need, etc. And whenever I get a new computer, the amount of hard drive space seems outlandish, but I always fill it up. But Moore's law doesn't really apply to pixels, does it?

I mean, you can only look at so much stuff at once. And, while no one who owns a 30" apple monitor actually complains about it, some admit to feeling a little uncomfortable about how much they need to crane their necks.
It's more about the relative low resolution of the displays for viewing things, i.e. how many pixels per inch they have. Imagine if the 30" Cinema display had twice its current resolution, but the interface objects stayed the same physical size? Now everything is incredibly sharp, just like looking at the printed page. Instead of being able to see individual pixels like you can now, you'd only see smooth text and objects. With resolution-independent interfaces that can be scaled up to accommodate the increase in pixel count, that's what we're looking at. Not to gain more desktop area, but to make that area more pleasant to look at.

[Peace]

Wanna buy some swampland?

I have no need for swampland.Thanks tho
;)

I know several musicians.One's that folks here would know of and they are NOT low to middle class..

I don't deny there are musicians that are barely making it.I'm one.But the vast majority of "popular" bands/musicians are driving nice cars and live in nice houses.
<edit> I fully understand the concept and reasons for DRM.I am however completely against big corporations telling consumers what they can or can't listen to and/or watch </edit>

[AlmostThere]

UDI will be the graphical interface "for the next ten years" by providing added bandwidth at least twice the capability of the largest displays today.

Way to push the technological boat out! A, whoa, doubling of capability to cater for the next 10 years. Man, these companies sure know how to design for the hi-tech future.

Well, sure, the Frinkiac-7 looks impressive (to student) Don't touch it! (back to class) But I predict that within 100 years computers will be twice as powerful, 10,000 times larger, and so expensive that only the five richest kings in Europe will own them

[Thanatoast]

Our saving grace will be the technology companies. If the media companies make the DRM too restrictive, no one will buy the devices to play it. The companies producing the players will fight for as much functionality as they can get in order to sell their hardware. The media companies will fight for the least amount of access they can get away with in order to milk us dry.

We've already seen this pattern with Apple and the RIAA. Apple knows that people won't buy iPods that have incredible restrictions on listening and copying music. If we don't buy the hardware, then the potential revenue for the media barons never appears. That's a lose-lose scenario.

Ironically, it'll be corporations fighting other corporations that saves our fair use rights. :rolleyes:

[ZorPrime]

Sorry, but you're incorrect. The DMCA de facto outlaws fair-use for materials that are protected by a technological access control measure. While fair use is still a defense to an action of copyright infringement, it is not a defense to the anti-circumvention portions of the DMCA. I wrote a paper on this recently for my Multimedia Law course, which you can read here (http://www.devlogik.com/matt/dmcapaper.pdf).

Good paper. :) As I stated, I'm no lawyer :o and I'm not going to debate the de facto laws (i'll loose. :o ), applied to fair-use, but even the DMCA has its limits and hasn't been constitutionally challenged yet. How does one define "circumventation"? Once can "circumvent" without touching DRM. The DMCA isn't uniformly applied, education and research being one, and companies, like Roxio, that make DVD backup software are still in business and aren't under injunction.

[jdechko]

D. Purchase music from the artist directly, and cut out the greedy, thieving, arrogant, and ultimately worthless labels.

Agreed, this would be the best option for us. However, this really doesn't translate well to the movie industry. It's the studios that have the money to put the films out (produce, edit, advertise, sell to homes).

My stance on the whole DRM thing is that I want Fair DRM. I want DRM that is transparent to me all of the time, unless I try to do something illegal with it. FairPlay is a great example. The only time that I even realize it's there is playing it on a formerly unauthorized machine. Even then, iTunes kindly asks me to authorize the machine to play the songs, and then it's back to transparent.

Perhaps that's a possibility for future movies. The player (or computer) would be connected to the internet (via phone or cable or something). When you insert a HDCP movie, it asks you to "register" (or authorize) the movie to the machine and then it plays. You could limit the authorization of the movie to 5-10 players, but allow for a deauthorize (or have a one-time, temporary authorization). The list of authorized HDCP movies could be kept in the players firmware or something. That way you can play it on the machines you own (allowing for 2 dvd players, and your personal machine plus taking it to a friends house), but you could take it over to your friends house and play it on his home theater (by using an authorization or a one-time play). Something like that seems reasonable for playing (fair use copying would have to be something else, maybe include a ripper on the disc that would add the same 5-10 authorizations/deauthorization to the movie).

Edit: I just looked and fortunately for me, my HDTV has the HDCP chip built in.

[jettredmont]

[url=http://www.macrumors.com]According to this TG Daily article, UDI will be the graphical interface "for the next ten years" by providing added bandwidth at least twice the capability of the largest displays today.

43" Apple Cinema Display here I come!

[JoeG4]

iTunes' FairPlay DRM is pretty straightforward though. It's only going to be there for you if you buy a song from iTMS. It doesn't try and lock down all the music you import into iTunes or check to see whether you bought your CDs legally, **** it doesn't even regularly check the iTMS server to see if your songs are still activated (once when activating the song and that's pretty much it for a good long time).

If a movie is going to have DRM on IT to make sure IT doesn't get copied, that's fine, but why should it go any further? Logically all they need to know is that the movie won't be copied by an average joe, and that's all there is to it.

Borrowing is part of the terms of using physical media, something that I know they'd love to abuse -- shoot there's even a problem with that in iTunes being that you can't "give" someone your songs.

With my reasoning though, HDCP doesn't sound all that bad -- but it is. It presents an inconvenience, as traditionally only the device that reads the copyrighted material has any obligation to utilize the protection. [DVD players need macrovision support to play certain DVDs?].

Of course, I'm sure having a compliant HDCP display also means having to pay somebody money to have that compliance and be able to use that standard. Not to mention HDCP requires video cards that support it, and motherboard, and so on and so fourth. Suddenly it begins to stink.

Dual Link DVI is not at the end of its capabilities, shoot right now it's finally being used to its full potential with displays like the 30" cinema display. Have you guys ever taken a good look at various DVI connectors?

Let's put it this way: Your average LCD is "single link" DVI, that means not all of the pins on your DVI port are used [which were all used by USB and various other things with ADC]. With Dual Link, those extra pins are used for video signal [which is why ADC was ditched].

Need more pins? Fine make a new interface. I don't see a reason why adding crap like this is necessary.

[jettredmont]

60 inch Apple Cinema Display! 5120x3200 pixels!!! :eek:

Umm, that would be 4x the bandwidth. You have to wait another 10 years for that.

Right now, you're looking at a 43" display. In just ten years. :)

[jettredmont]

There are many other ways how a BlueRay DVD might be pirated, and HDCP cannot do anything about those.

Which, of course, is the major logic flaw in this whole line of thinking. The "real" pirates will be running bit-for-bit duplication facilities and shipping silkscreened disks that look identical to the originals to every street corner in Taipei the day the Blu Ray disk ships. The "real" pirates will be ripping the movie from pre-release screenings before the movie even hits theaters. All this rigamarole does a whole lot to thwart Joe Sixpack from hooking up a "spoofing device", decrypting the contents of his video library, and offering that on the Internet to all his "friends", at a severe cost to consumers (at least, pretty much everyone who has bought an HDTV or HD monitor in the past five years or so) both directly (you have to buy a new HD monitor to view encrypted HD content) and indirectly, in adding more complexity to the process and thus many more points of failure to make watching a friday night movie a boondoggle equivalent to installing a new sound card in a Windows PC.

Ah well. All hail our new content overlords.

[hayesk]

D. Purchase music from the artist directly, and cut out the greedy, thieving, arrogant, and ultimately worthless labels.

Don't forget the songwriters. Many musicians don't sing their own songs.

To me, the independent labels seem to be the best compromise.

[iMeowbot]

Are you saying it's legal to rip a DVD? I didn't quite follow your argument because I'm not familiar with the court case. That would be awesome if it was.
DMCA overrides the old court cases in this area, but (perhaps surprisingly to some) DMCA does not make it illegal to make personal copies of DVDs for your own use (in other words, it's okay as long as it's a legitimate fair use and not Internet-style fantasy fair use). It does, however, make it illegal for most people to sell and distribute devices or software that can do the job.

Basically, DMCA breaks DRM into two flavors, access control and copy control. Access control is the type of DRM that makes sure that you have a license to play a work -- software keys and the iTunes password protection are examples of access controls. Copy control is just that, a measure that prevents a medium from being copied -- The SCMS built into DAT and Minidisc players, and the CSS encoded into most commercial DVDs, are copy controls.

DMCA makes it illegal to develop or distribute something that circumvents either kind of DRM, with certain narrow restrictions for researchers, libraries and so on.

DMCA makes it illegal to circumvent an access control, with a very few narrow exceptions.

DMCA does not make it illegal to use a tool that circumvents a copy control, except that all the other restrictions built into older copyright law still apply. As above, (almost) no one is allowed to provide you with those tools.

For there to be penalties, DMCA requires that circumvention devices be created or used "willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain". That's probably the main reason why ripping tools are still so easy to obtain, the barrier is fairly high before it can really be enforced.

(I know what someone's going to inevitably ask: so why was DVD Jon arrested? He was still living in Norway at the time, and was dragged through court under Norwegian law. US DMCA stuff had nothing to do with him.)

[Peace]

DMCA overrides the old court cases in this area, but (perhaps surprisingly to some) DMCA does not make it illegal to make personal copies of DVDs for your own use (in other words, it's okay as long as it's a legitimate fair use and not Internet-style fantasy fair use). It does, however, make it illegal for most people to sell and distribute devices or software that can do the job.

Basically, DMCA breaks DRM into two flavors, access control and copy control. Access control is the type of DRM that makes sure that you have a license to play a work -- software keys and the iTunes password protection are examples of access controls. Copy control is just that, a measure that prevents a medium from being copied -- The SCMS built into DAT and Minidisc players, and the CSS encoded into most commercial DVDs, are copy controls.

DMCA makes it illegal to develop or distribute something that circumvents either kind of DRM, with certain narrow restrictions for researchers, libraries and so on.

DMCA makes it illegal to circumvent an access control, with a very few narrow exceptions.

DMCA does not make it illegal to use a tool that circumvents a copy control, except that all the other restrictions built into older copyright law still apply. As above, (almost) no one is allowed to provide you with those tools.

For there to be penalties, DMCA requires that circumvention devices be created or used "willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain". That's probably the main reason why ripping tools are still so easy to obtain, the barrier is fairly high before it can really be enforced.

(I know what someone's going to inevitably ask: so why was DVD Jon arrested? He was still living in Norway at the time, and was dragged through court under Norwegian law. US DMCA stuff had nothing to do with him.)

so why was DVD Jon arrested?
:p

[hulugu]

Darn, another hurdle to jump over if I want to commit a crime :rolleyes:

Oh wait, I don't steal my stuff. Nevermind, I don't care.

Eventually, something that has DRM is going to screw with you and then you're going to be pissed. Until your apathy is merely ignoring what could be a very raw deal for customers. Furthermore, conflating copyright infringment with a crime is disingenuous at best.

[hulugu]

HDCP prevents one very specific method of copying contents that has nothing to do with fair use: By grabbing the video signal between graphics card and monitor. Of course it is very annoying if an expensive monitor that is quite capable of displaying HD content won't work because HDCP is missing on the monitor, but this has nothing to do with "fair use": No HDCP, and you cannot use HD content at all, whether fair or unfair.

To be sure, there will be other measures that will prevent both illegal copying and "fair use", but HDCP isn't one of them.

It will affect fair use, why shouldn't I be able to grab the video signal from equipment I paid for? This system isn't for the advancement of technology, it's to protect copyright by limiting the capabilities of my equipment. This, like DRM, is going to come with a host of unintended consequences for consumers while failing to limit piracy. It's unfair, it's anti-consumer and I wish people would understand that.

[AtariMac]

Frankly none of this seems important to me. However, Lacero sure looks hot in that Santa hat.

Pete

[shawnce]

But what's the point of playing back a super-high res video on something the size of the iPod? Is someone going to watch the whole video at 100x magnification?

Video isn't the best example to be talking about when talking about resolution independence.

Is there going to be a market for 17" or 19" monitors running at 5760*3600 in 2010?

Yes. Wouldn't you like to have a 17" or 19" display that is 300 DPI (dot per inch) coupled with an operating system that can render text, controls, etc. at 300 DPI. In other words the physical dimensions of the letter "T" stays the same when displayed but instead it is drawn with 2 or more times the number of pixels (giving it better visual appearance).

[sw1tcher]

I couldn't disagree more!

IF there will be a copy-protected standard coming (and it will for sure), then it is surely better for us to have Apple in the decision-making process.

The only people in the decision making process will be the MPAA et al.

[aLbAn]

All of them are more poor than the executives. As for my comment, not all artists are rich. My arguments clearly don't point to the rich, but to those who are not.

David :cool:

you are right, of course.
But it is still a very good idea to undertake some kind of action against these record labels: it will definately hurt them on the long term, and in the end they will have to change their pricing policies.

I myself, a musician and producer, experienced the consequences of cd pricing and piracy. However, i think that missing out on a few bucks would never stop me from making and recording good music, and trying to get my songs played by as many people as possible. and yes, even if it means, that some copies will be pirated; i don't really care about that.
The people that DO care, are either label executives, as you say, or musicians who are in the business purely for profit.

in other words: i don't see how piracy would have a negative bearing on the quality of the music that is made. All this copy protection stuff that is being invented, will have negative effects however, as in this way, any distribution source will only host protected media...

Oh yes: before anyone starts rattling about musicians needing the record companies for stuff like distribution, promotion, etc.: this will surely become a thing of the past, because more and more music will be primarily published on the internet, and only secondarily on physical media....

[maya]

All these new rules and hardware only creates one thing for pirates, a challenge and they love a new challenge all the time.

A pirate is in the market to make money and if that market if threatened they will find a way, anyway to solve that issue just to continue what they have been doing in the past. Since to them that is a profitable market, regardless of the crime.

The MPAA will never learn, they invest all this money into catching these pirates, put them in jail and fine them and the pirates will come out and do it all over again. The MPAA will then just go after another, and its impossible to catch them all, as you put one behind bars another 5 will surface and when the time done for the last person is up and (s)he is out of prison they will teach another 10 or so people to do the same just as "payback."

In the end its the honest consumer that really takes all the beating, first to pay for all this new R&D that went into all these restrictions and rules and second the limitations of viewing they own content.

The MPAA has dug they own grave, by not selling affordable media (DVD, CD) to the public. They thought of they deep pockets first and the quality and concerns of the public last.

I saw they deserve what they will get. :rolleyes:

There is a noticeable difference between SD > HD > UHD.

In the end the public will decide since they will always be swayed towards the lower $. ;) :)

[DISCOMUNICATION]

I used to think HDCP's only purpose was to sell expensive HDTV's and keep people from using their cheap PC monitors as televisions. But now with more and more HDCP PC monitors popping up and supposedly a lot more will be coming in 2006 most likely from Dell I'm just not sure. The new Dell 3007wfp is basically the Apple 30" ADC with HDCP support. Are there even any HDCP consumer video devices that can drive a dual link display?
As for a new standard connector... I say it's about time the industry did away with all of these physically bulky connectors with pins that can fall out or break and that you need to screw into place. HDMI is a step in the right direction. Let's just hope this new connector is even better. I would love to see the bus powered display feature make a comeback... as an industry standard of course.

[virus1]

i supposed apple must have embarrased the standard by having to resort to using 2 dvi.. haha..

[elmimmo]

Ok so we supposedly can't play HD content that is not encrypted?
You got wrong. You cannot play ENCRYPTED HD content if both the player and the screen are not HDPC compatible. How could anyone limit in a technical level forbid playing what is not encrypted…

So, to sum up, all HD displays can play non-encrypted streams, but only HDPC HD displays can play both encrypted and non-encrypted streams.

[vjl323]

And this is bad how? DRM helps movie, TV and record execs sleep better at night and makes them more likely to allow content like episodes of "The Office" available over iTunes. You think that would have happened if Apple's DRM for the rollout of "Lost" and "Desperate Housewives" had set off a huge round of piracy? It didn't happen, and now the content is going to start coming in droves.

Can you get it for free? No. Content providers don't make money by giving it to you for free, and they're not going to make it available if the DRM doesn't work.

The anti-DRM crowd continues to mystify me.

There already was/is a huge round of piracy for TV shows - most BT sites have tons of TV shows you can download in case you forgot to set your VCR. Granted, they are commercial free, which *is* illegal, but still.

And of course I get "The Office" for free - OTA [over the air] TV is still free, as long as I own a TV. If "The Office" was on HBO or another paid channel, then that's a different story. But OTA TV is paid for by the advertisers. All iTunes does is allow someone to buy a commercial free version of a free OTA show in case they missed it the night it aired. It's a great idea, but it's been going on for years on the BT sites. In Europe esp., downloading TV shows is a very popular thing to do.

Don't use OTA TV as an example of why DRM is good...it's one of the few cases where DRM really has no right to be applied, since the original product was given away for free.

/vjl/

[Platform]

so why was DVD Jon arrested?
:p

At the time.....under Norwagian law, he had not done anything illeagal.

But the people in Hollywood had to try anyway.....international preasure.

[eXan]

That would be quadrupling of the bandwidth, not a doubling. :p

Ah, doesnt matter ;)

[zwilliams07]

What it all boils down to is: Big corporations want to take away our freedoms and rob us blind.

What the article boils down to is: Apple might end up being one of those "big corporations" that screws us.

Trusted Computing, DRM, HDCP, Kernel Locking, all this stuff, all of it, are weapons against consumers. Those big CEOs and executives don't care about being fair, they just want as much money as possible.

Don't put it past them to try and lock out unencrypted stuff from sources other than their own.

If the MPAA and RIAA were really fair or at least decent human beings they'd do stuff like this to curb piracy.

1. Stop being greedy. They don't need their millions of dollars of salaries.
Stars shouldn't be paid so much for absolutely trival amounts of work.
2. Stop producing utter crap that is purposely bastardized to appeal to the lowest common denominator.
3. Produce quality entertainment. How hard is it to find a new idea or new work? Stop remaking crap.
4. Stop charging absorbent prices for DVDs. $30 for two hours? Effin cripes. I can buy games like Half-Life 2 or Halo 2, spend about the same amount of cash as two movies and have fun for years. $30 for two hours? $50 for years? Seems a bit unfair.
5. Stop cramming "anti-piracy" junk into our stuff. Stop encrypting our stuff.
6. Stop lying about it being "anti-piracy" when its becoming more and more apparent with every minute that its lock-in tactics.
7. Stop sueing medium and low income families. Must make you feel like a big man RIAA, sueing a mother of 7. Good for you. See you in hell.
8. Stop trying to guilt people into your methods.
9. Stop tampering with our freedoms. I paid for the content, I should be able to decide what I can or cannot do with it.
10. Stop hindering progress.
11. Stop being *ssholes and people will have more respect and might likely stop pirating as much.

If RIAA and the MPAA stopped being total idiots and a-holes, people probably would feel worse about stealing their content.

[LethalWolfe]

If RIAA and the MPAA stopped being total idiots and a-holes, people probably would feel worse about stealing their content.

If you scaled back on the ignorant rants and people might care about what you are saying.


Lethal

[zwilliams07]

If you scaled back on the ignorant rants and people might care about what you are saying.


Lethal

Oh, how that stings. Call me ignorant while you accept them taking control of what you can, and cannot do with your property.

Would you buy a car if the car company only allowed you to drive to the store and work?

[rifepe]

Sorta. I worked in retail for 6 years before doing web design to pay the bills through university. Every night when I was leaving, the security guard would check my bag. I didn't like it, but I put up with it. What should the company do if the majority of theft is always internal?

Further, 90% of my friends steal music and don't think twice about it. How about your friends? All it took was the ability to get away with it and their ability to say "everyone does it." Sure these same people won't rob a bank, but why? Because it is morally sanctioned, and because they wouldn't get away with it. Moral relativism has corrupted the minds of the contemporary world so much that theft is considered "ok."

Nonetheless, if you want to blame DRM on someone, you're right to blame it on the companies. After all, the thieves may be the reason that the companies added a lock, but the company itself still had a choice. But ask yourself "what would I do?" Would you be allowing everyone to steal your stuff, knowing that—as the younger generation got older and the old people who don't understand the technology die off—it would only get worse?

If you want to complain about unfair DRM (DVD's inability to make ANY rips), fine. But if you want to complain about DRM as a concept at all, come up with a better model. Trust obviously doesn't work, as evident by the rampant piracy of music. So what's the better option?

An immanent critique (one that makes no suggestions) is not useful here. What is needed are suggestions for a better model of DRM that will be both fair to those of us who are not crooks, while at the same time keeping those who will steal whatever they can get away with under wraps so that pricing does not skyrocket.

Ideas people!

David :cool:

Nice idea but in my country you can´t steal music unless you sale it. You pay a surcharge over all the CD and DVD you buy in compensation to be able to make copies at your heart content from any source and that include a P2P network.
So the DRM is try to steal from me so I have to pay the surcharge anycase but can´t make the copies.

The DRM in DVD was consider legal due to the existence of the analog hole that allowed to circumvent it.

[dernhelm]

huh? :confused: I've studied (US Copyright) law and your comment is wrong. ;)

W. Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette and Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studio, Inc. are precedents that haven't been overturned... there may have been adaptation and modification of the exercise clause of the 1st Amendment but Fair Use is Protected Speech and is Legal, at least here in America. ;) :o

Edit/Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer or advocate of "piracy" and my comments do not constitute any legal advice or others point of view because I have no clue. :o

You missed what I said. Of course fair use is legal, that's what makes it fair use. What I was pointing out is that the DMCA and Fair Use conflict on the issue as to wheter or not you can rip your own movies for display on your own devices. Any way you look at it, that constitutes fair use, but the DMCA says it is ALWAYS illegal to "break" the encryption on a DVD for any purpose, even one that falls under fair use policies.

Therefore it is possible to exercise fair use and still be a criminal in the process.
:mad:

[dernhelm]

An immanent critique (one that makes no suggestions) is not useful here. What is needed are suggestions for a better model of DRM that will be both fair to those of us who are not crooks, while at the same time keeping those who will steal whatever they can get away with under wraps so that pricing does not skyrocket.

Ideas people!


I can't wait to see what happens when they finally close the "analog hole" (which I've heard some talk about, although I can't say that I understand the technology needed to plug it)/

The DRM in on-line music is annoying but not oppressive since it does not prevent me from backing up my own content or producing lower quality versions of the content in other formats - burn to CD, rerip. I'm not a big fan of DRM in any form, but it doesn't scafe me enough to get ticked about it.

The DRM on DVD movies is both annoying and oppressive since it restricts my fair use. It is currently impossible to make a copy of a DVD without breaking the DRM, or reducing the quality of the copy (via analog copy). It is also illegal to scale it down and transfer it to my iPod (or whatever portable device I may have) because I have to "break" the DRM to do so.

My suggestion to the movie industry is to find a way to DRM their stuff without interfering with my fair use rights as a consumer. The bottom line is that movie piracy is already rampant and their boneheaded restrictive DRM is not stopping that. All it is doing is making honest people into criminals, as they circumvent DRM in order to maintain their own fair use rights.

It should be incumbent on the MPAA to prove why such a restrictive DRM is required in order to protect their assets. It should not be incumbent on me to prove why my fair use rights should not be impinged upon.

[ZorPrime]

You missed what I said. Of course fair use is legal, that's what makes it fair use. What I was pointing out is that the DMCA and Fair Use conflict on the issue as to wheter or not you can rip your own movies for display on your own devices. Any way you look at it, that constitutes fair use, but the DMCA says it is ALWAYS illegal to "break" the encryption on a DVD for any purpose, even one that falls under fair use policies.

Therefore it is possible to exercise fair use and still be a criminal in the process.
:mad:

I'm sorry for the mix up. :o

I actually agree with you, about how the DMCA contradicts fair use. :) I was trying to state my opinion that the DMCA doesn't take precedence over previous Supreme Court rullings, at least in my ethical thought. The DMCA hasn't been tested constitutionally, yet... I guess one could argue that parts of the DMCA are actually not legal as applied to the previous Supreme Court rulings. Therefore, if one were to constitutionally test the DMCA it would likely fail. IMHO the Supreme Court has the final say, unless the constitution is amended, so those sections of the DMCA that contradict fair use are mute, until the Supreme Court reverses itself by upholding portions of the DMCA that contradict earlier precedence.

I also totally agree with you that it bites that certain powers to be have been trying to criminalize ones rights. :mad:

[finchna]

OK, my Dad just bought a nice new Panasonic Viera 42" plasma screen. It has HDMI input on the back. What this is saying is that this screen, despite the thousands of dollars Dad has just thrown down for it, might not be able to play HD content from the new generation players?

Well that's just plain stupid.

Are there any TV screens (not computer screens like Apple's) out there that are true HD resolution (1920 x 1080)? I've not seen any so don't all these screens compromise the quality of real HD content? Perhaps there will be an adapter box so that systems that don't meet the new specs can play something from new HD or BluRay disks--or they'll just throw a lower resolution copy of the content for such systems.

[Sunrunner]

Are there any TV screens (not computer screens like Apple's) out there that are true HD resolution (1920 x 1080)? I've not seen any so don't all these screens compromise the quality of real HD content? Perhaps there will be an adapter box so that systems that don't meet the new specs can play something from new HD or BluRay disks--or they'll just throw a lower resolution copy of the content for such systems.


Thats why it is best to get a TV that accepts component input, and can handle 1080i. As long as you have that, your pretty much set.

[ZorPrime]

Are there any TV screens (not computer screens like Apple's) out there that are true HD resolution (1920 x 1080)? I've not seen any so don't all these screens compromise the quality of real HD content? Perhaps there will be an adapter box so that systems that don't meet the new specs can play something from new HD or BluRay disks--or they'll just throw a lower resolution copy of the content for such systems.

Yep, there are native 1080i/p TV monitors out there. I have a Mistubishi 1080p DLP HDTV (http://www.mitsubishi-tv.com/televisions/details.asp?id=189), mine is the WD-52627 with HDMI/HDCP. :) :cool:

Sears sells one. You can check it out here (http://www.sears.com/sr/javasr/product.do?BV_SessionID=@@@@1492558765.1135278540@@@@&BV_EngineID=ccidaddgiffedfmcegecegjdghldfom.0&vertical=SEARS&sid=I0033900070001100085&pid=05754175000)

[Fukui]

Stop cramming "anti-piracy" junk into our stuff. Stop encrypting our stuff.
Oh, but thats the consumer's opinion. Thier idea is that its NOT your stuff, its thiers, and you have no right to do what you want with it; you have the right to do what they want you to do with it.

In the future it seems that you can own nothing, everything is rented, worse than communism if you ask me! At least in communism it supposed to be free!;)

[LethalWolfe]

Video isn't the best example to be talking about when talking about resolution independence.



Yes. Wouldn't you like to have a 17" or 19" display that is 300 DPI (dot per inch) coupled with an operating system that can render text, controls, etc. at 300 DPI. In other words the physical dimensions of the letter "T" stays the same when displayed but instead it is drawn with 2 or more times the number of pixels (giving it better visual appearance).
But my point is that at some point the added resolution will be pointless for most cases because people will not be able to see the added detail.


Lethal

[ethernet76]

The advent of P2P music sharing occurred not because people could do it. Not because there wasn't a legal alternative to P2P. But because of price. Sorry but $12.99 vs. .99 is somewhat of a no brainer. (Even now when you consider that iTMS only caters to iPods only....)
What is going on with movies, music, and books is no different then prohibition. Doubtless that there were people like you who believed that following the rules is the only way. Thankfully society stepped in and forced the issue otherwise we would all be drinking root beers instead right now. Society is doing the same thing with big business right now. Its basically saying F-you to the outrageous prices being forced on the consumers. Remember how we were told that the advent of CD tech would bring about lower music prices. Well last time I looked that didn't happen. What did happen and is happening is a backlash against greedy businesses. And right now we as consumers are at war with the *AA's. If you don't think this is a war wake up and look at the number of battles being fought the EFF. The amount of legislation being introduced that is so anti-consumer that its not even funny. This isn't about the poor *AA. This is about companies that want to squeeze every possible cent out of the consumer. You can rest assure that the *AA's will not be happy until you are charged every time you view, listen, read their content.

Please read this http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/analog-hole.ars

If that doesn't get your hackles up I don't know what will.

I understand the argument of price. Thirteen dollars seems expensive for buying 60 minutes worth of sound. After all, we hear sound all day and it's free.

However, theft is not justified even if you don't agree with the price. I think iPods are expensive. Using your argument I would be justified in stealing an iPod.

Piracy happened because technology made it more feasible. I remember the days of dubbed tapes, making a copy of a friend's CD at 1x and all the other ways I got free music.

Consumers need to realize the problem isn't with the greedy companies, it's with themselves. It makes no sense for RIAA companies to provide their products at cut-rate prices. After all, they are a business. Supply and demand, etc.

Most Western counties have stopped viewing music as a good, but instead as a necessity. This is the first problem.

Really the fault lies on both sides. Consumers don't want to admit they're part of the problem. Once they realize music is no different than any other good they buy things will get better. It isn't like I can make a backup pair of pants in case the Levi's I bought rip.