Apple involved in Next Gen PC to HDTV Connectivity

[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

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.

Umm dude I just rolled out a Dell desktop with DVI yesterday. 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

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

 

[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

 

[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? 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.

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.

 

[Super Dave]

huh? 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.

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

 

[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

"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]

Corrected

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

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

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.

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

 

[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

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

 

[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

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

 

[cubist]

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

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

 

[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.