Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
gekko513 said:
Meh ... it's not that big a deal. I already trust my car maker with my steering wheel (servo).

No you dont - the car maker cannot drive the car for you. The same analogy applies to your other anal examples too. Id suggest you read a little bit more about "Trusted Computing".
 
I think the issue is whether or not we should leave the opportunity for Apple to use our computers for 'corrupt' purposes. It's an issue of trust. I see so many similarities between this and the Patriot Act.

The Patriot Act gives the government a lot of power to do very corrupt things. Will the Bush administration use their newfound powers for corrupt purposes? Personally, I'd rather not find out.

The same goes for Apple. Why give them the chance to promote corrupt corporate practices? Giving a baby a small shiny object isn't going to kill them; small shiny objects aren't innately evil. But babies are naturally inclined to swallow small shiny objects (which they can choke on). Giving a baby a quarter won't kill it, but you shouldn't do it anyways. Much like an inclination to swallow a shiny object, Apple will be inclined to make more money by limiting our rights. Let's not give Apple the quarter to swallow. How is that for a metaphor :p.

I really hope nobody responds with a political rebuttal, I just wanted to show why I would rather Apple not use this technology - starting a political flame fest is not my intention. :)

scem0
 
Loke said:
How do YOU know what a TPM module on a Mac can do and cant do, will do and wont do?

I know nothing about it.

Do you?

If neither of us knows anything about how the TPM module will be used, then there's no use in getting worked up about it now. If Apple is part of a plot to conquer the world by strangling the internet, its something we'll figure out shortly after the TPM enabled Macs come out. And I won't buy one, and I imagine most wouldn't.

Clearly something to watch, not something to obsess over. Especially not something to call other people "sheep" or "stupid".
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by gekko513
Meh ... it's not that big a deal. I already trust my car maker with my steering wheel (servo).


No you dont - the car maker cannot drive the car for you. The same analogy applies to your other anal examples too. Id suggest you read a little bit more about "Trusted Computing".

Hah... saw that one coming.
 
SeaFox said:
Because consumer CD burners didn't exist when CD's came out in the late 80's, there wasn't any way to make perfact copies of them. DUH.

Hey, if the RIAA isn't interested in curtailing my ability to make copies of CD's, why do I keep hearing about these CD's with DRM that prevent you from copying, ripping or otherwise reproducing them digitally, the ones some people have to fight to get stores to take back when they find the CD doesn't play on their older CD player or car stereo. I've got an Audio CD I can play on my discman (which has an optical output) but if I try to copy it to my minidisc player (which I'm supposed to be able to do, it's kinda the whole purpose of a portable audio player) it flashes "NO COPY" on the screen and wont record it, it doesn't do it with other CD's.

You are defending an argument that hasn't been made. The argument was that CDs wouldn't exist in the first place if the RIAA had its way. This is obviously not true, and I have to note that no effort has been made to defend this point.

I suppose this website was put up just for the hell of it?
Yeah, the RIAA/MPAA has nothing to do with it.

This site only proves that free speech is alive and well on the net. And so is nonsense. What possible incentive would the music industry have to kill the iPod?
 
Loke said:
I think SeaFox provided excellent documentation of my previous claims, so thank you for saving me the time writing about it.

No, he hasn't provided a shred of documentation for your earlier claims, and neither have you.
 
Firstly can I just say "WHAT A CRACKIN' THREAD!!"

Secondly I hope Loke stays at MR and this isnt a one-thread-wonder.

Thirdly, I'm personally against anything that allows ANY INC. find out what I have on my PC, if that is indeed the case with TCPA or will ever be. With most things in life I prefer to sit on the 'Cynical bench' and think the worse off any organized group of individuals where the accumilation of wealth/power is their driving force.
At this moment in time we don't know how they may implement it or what the ramifications may be. Worse case- all media imported is DRM'd and reported back to the licence holder when viewed.
To be honest I have little faith that corporations will fight the good fight and protect our rights. Do governments? Bush? Blair? We voted them in knowing deep down that their wishes are bent by BIG INC, yet we're quite happy to fight our little corner to keep the status quo that is our family, home, cars, holidays etc and hope that status quo remains to change imperceptably during our lifetime so as not to cause us too much shame. Is Apple any different? You wish.

And the band played on.
 
SeaFox said:
A. For such campaign to work will require massive oganization and cooperation for the public. And that will never happen. Most of them don't know about any of this.

I'm not advocating some sort of grass roots consumer activism as a way to get rid of DRM. I am making a deeper point: someone creates something, they have the right to set the terms by which others use it. If you don't like his terms (such as the inclusion of DRM), you have NO RIGHT to that content in ANY FORM.

Because what is the alternative? Get your government to force him to sell it without DRM against his will? Then you are nothing but a slave driver - someone who uses force to control creative people. And a hypocritical one at that, because not only are you stomping his rights, the whole time you're bitching about your own so-called rights.

There is no such thing as the right to be a slave driver. There is only him and his creation and they are the precious thing which must be protected.
 
I've decided that I'm A-Okay with all this DRM ****. Of course, the principle blows, and being an anarchist I'm somewhat miffed that anyone is trying to control what the hell I do with my property. But then, I'm an anarcho-communist (or at least an anarcho-syndicalist), so I guess I'll just expand my notion of property to include all information that can be copied at infinitesimal cost. Like music. So I'll put a big @#$%ing hard drive or three in my B&W G3 and listen to my iTunes on it. When the Intel Macs come out, I'll watch them very closely, and buy any and all required mod chips that will circumvent this measure. They want to control what I do with my property? Well, I'll make it challenging for them.

Just remember: if the law is unjust, **** the law. That's what Buddha, Jesus, Henry David Thoreau, and the unimpeachable Kalisphoenix said, as they were sitting in Mescalero's kingdom shooting pool and watching pr0n.

Back to the issue at hand (and, possibly, some semblance of comprehensibility): I think that this is a bad idea, a bad measure to take to preserve a bad idea, and any implementation of this measure will be a bad one and therefore can be overcome with $20 eBay parts or some good old-fashioned hacking.

I don't really understand how a chip on my motherboard will decide what OS I'm running or, for that matter, whether I'm listening to an Ogg or an mp3. Perhaps someone will clue me in here.
 
IJ Reilly said:
What possible incentive would the music industry have to kill the iPod?

They would be able to sell you multiple copies of the same song because you wouldn't have the ability to take the CD you already paid for and rip it to the iPod you no longer have without getting DRM clearance from them. And if you think they wouldn't try to charge you for the "privilage" of being able to transfer your music, you truly are naive.

It's no big secret that what the music industry really wants is to be able to keep your credit card on file and charge you everytime you play a song. Being able to interface with your computer (bypassing you) is the first step to that.
 
IJ Reilly said:
You are defending an argument that hasn't been made. The argument was that CDs wouldn't exist in the first place if the RIAA had its way. This is obviously not true, and I have to note that no effort has been made to defend this point.

And you are attacking an argument which hasn´t been made. Ive never said the CD wouldnt´t exist in the first place if the RIAA had its way. In fact, I never said anything remotely related to the above, so stop being a moron trying to change the premesis of the discussion.

The fact is when the CD standard was developed by Phillips, the recording labels finally had a delivery means which was "impossible" to reproduce by consumers, and able to deliver music in a wast superior quality over tape recorders and vinyl. And because the audio was superior, people also bought the original CDs and few copied, because the copy would be inferiour. (There were other factors like song-skip which also helped the CD become very popular, but you get the idea) During this time, "everyone" bought CDs. The industry grew enormously and basically laid the foundation for the very existence of powerful and greedy "artist-representing" organizations like the RIAA we know today:

RIAA said:
Able to store at least 74 minutes of uninterrupted high-fidelity sound, andfree of the surface noise which can mar LP playback, the CD also offers random access to conveniently take listeners directly to any track. The format first caught the attention of classical music lovers, then grew rapidly to become the dominant release format within its first decade on the market. Source: RIAA

It was many years later the consumer CD-recorders hit an acceptable price point, and the problem revealed itself to the recording labels:

RIAA said:
Spurred by the public's enthusiasm for CDs and cassettes, consumer electronics manufacturers began looking for ways to combine the fidelity of the former with the recordability of the latter. But cassettes had already enabled both widespread home taping and wholesale copying by organized pirates, which were depriving artists, songwriters, publishers and labels of the revenues they depend on for their livelihood.

The RIAA, as well as other organizations representing the interests of those who create and distribute prerecorded music, was especially concerned by digital recording because there is no generation loss in digital transfers - a copy sounds the same as the original. Without limits on unauthorized copying, a digital audio recording format could easily encourage the pirating of master-quality recordings.

As a consortium of hardware manufacturers developed the R-DAT (rotary head digital audio tape) format, the RIAA and similar international groups tried to encourage the adoption of copying safeguards. Unable to reach agreement with the manufacturers, most labels did not release any prerecorded software in support of the format when it was introduced to consumers in 1987. Source: RIAA

As you can see, they tried everything they could to prevent the birth of equipment able to perform 1:1 digital copies. They wanted control, and when they couldnt gain it - they refused to play along. This exact same story unfolded when the double deck tape recorders and VHS/BetaMAX hit consumer level prices also.

The same story, of course, also repeated itself when the first MP3 players hit the market:
RIAA said:
With the passage of the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, inclusion of serial copying technology became law in the United States. But subsequent developments – both technical and legal – have demonstrated the limited benefits of this legislation. The Act applies only to devices designed or marketed for the "primary purpose" of making digital audio recordings, thus excluding general-purpose computer devices. Based on this exclusion, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected RIAA’s effort to require new MP3 players like the Diamond Rio to comply with the requirements of the Audio Home Recording Act. Source: RIAA

They wanted control. Again. And when they couldnt gain it - they refused to play along. Again. There was no DRM on the iPod when it was released. And there was no iTunes Music Store. Because the RIAA wouldnt play along. And the RIAA loathed the iPod just as they loathed every other MP3-playing device out there they could not control.

In fact it wasnt until the DMCA was passed along in the US, basically giving the RIAA the tool it needed to take control, they took action. All of the sudden everyone was forced to play along on their premesis, and anyone who didnt like this either got sued or threatened using the DMCA as a crowbar. You can read the testamony of this turn of events by Hillary Rosen yourself on RIAAs webpage.

So Apple had to get into bed with RIAA and implement a technical solution which RIAA found acceptable. Hello iTunes Music Store and hello iPod DRM. It seems most people find the DRM acceptable, because the ITMS is a huge success. Fine, Ive got no problem with this. But we all know the DRM in iTunes and the iPod is flaved. Apple knows it. DVD-Jon knows it. RIAA knows it. We know it.

They are constantly trying to improve the control they have over your digital media. RIAA is pushing for more and better DRM. And they will likely not back of, until they have full control. Everything in their past points in this direction. And the TCPA is their next big trump card.

Apple and RIAA has a GREAT relationship. But dont be so naive to think RIAA isnt colaborating with MS and other big players also. Everyone are in on this, because it wont work untill every major company in the industry plays along.

Of course Apple wants to do the same to movies, as they have for music. We all know the video ipod is coming. It has been rumored for years. And we all know MPAA wants control, just like RIAA wants control. And TCPA is whats going to give them control. Ultimate control. No more software hacks. No more loop-holes. Just plain and ultimate control and supervision of every user playing digital media on any electronics device anywhere in the world. Either you play along on their premisis - using the media WHEN and WHERE as THEY see fit on THEIR approved equipment, or you cant play at all. This is the reality, ladies and gentlemen. Fair use becomes extinct. Privacy becomes extinct. Rights you regard as basic and fundamental today becomes extinct. In return you are given equipment which will phone home about your actions and habits. If you think its simply a matter of preventing it from phoning home, the equipment will simply refuse to function. This is not sci-fi, this is the reality today. And all this because consumers like yourself does not take a stand and say no.

The quotes above comes from RIAAs homepage. You dont get any more biased information than that. Its coming from Satans mouth itself. And last, but not least, a very big **** you to IJ Reilley for making me waste 1 hour of my evening proving something we all knew from the start.
 
broken_keyboard said:
I'm not advocating some sort of grass roots consumer activism as a way to get rid of DRM.

You said if we didn't like the trems then don't play the game. That's a boycott. Now tell me how a boycott is NOT grass-roots consumer activism?

Because what is the alternative? Get your government to force him to sell it without DRM against his will?

The media conglomerates hold a virtual monopoly on the entertainment industry. The government, while it does not find monopolies in themselves to be illegal, does find that when they use their lock on the market in ways that take advantage of consumers they have the authority to impose penalties.

This isn't having the government act as a "slave driver" it's having them watch out for their people, something the U.S. government is supposed to do last time I checked.

The television and movie studios agree to this arrangement by continuing to do business in the United States and other countries with similar laws.

If they don't like the idea of the government "slave driving" them. They can go sell their movies somewhere else.


Just as you propose consumers "not buy" if they don't like the terms of usage. Maybe the MPAA should not sell movies if they don't like Fair Use.:D

Then you are nothing but a slave driver - someone who uses force to control creative people.

Please, let's not pretend the recording industry is the "creative people" here. :rolleyes: It's the artists who make the music, and every musician I've talked to has no problem with me ripping CD to make a mix-tape for my car or to load on an iPod/Minidisc, ect providing I'm not giving it out. And some don't mind if I *am* sharing it!

And a hypocritical one at that, because not only are you stomping his rights, the whole time you're bitching about your own so-called rights.

The only "right" I'm stomping on is the false one the record executive thinks he has to maintain the comfortable postion in the music market he's enjoyed for decades, in the face of a technologically changing music market where he is less and less a necessity.
 
Loke said:
It sickens me to see hundreds of posts like "Buuhuu what a crap update", while this thread - about 1000 times more important - has 3 replies.

MS has had to take all sort of **** from all over the web for its flirting with TCPA. Steve Jobs on the other hand has done something Microsoft could only dream of. By snapping his finger and moving the entire line to Intel CPUs, he also got the benefit of integrating TCPA in EVERY Mac sold. And what do you - the customers - say? "Its needed to protect OSX from running on regular x86 hardware" Talk about SJ Distortion Field!!!!

This is a joke. You should all be *very* upset and angry over this move, and while youre at it get a PowerPC Mac without TCPA while you can. The rest of you: prepare to be ass****ed - because thats what TCPA does in the end.

It depends what Apple does with TCPA.


If the ONLY use for it is to prevent anyone from installing OS X on a non-Apple computer, then good for Apple.

If they try to use the DRM to restrict the users on anything, like M$ is doing with Longhorn, then :mad:
 
So... you guys are saying that Apple will physically draw the line between its ppc and x86 consumers by saying 'you can give us money for movies and you can't'? Not gonna happen. The ppcs and the x86s are gonna have as little difference between them as possible. Besides, you guys are just whining that pirating movies is going to be harder than it was before. There's always a way around everything...
 
DrNeroCF said:
So... you guys are saying that Apple will physically draw the line between its ppc and x86 consumers by saying 'you can give us money for movies and you can't'? Not gonna happen. The ppcs and the x86s are gonna have as little difference between them as possible. Besides, you guys are just whining that pirating movies is going to be harder than it was before. There's always a way around everything...

Good point, especially if Apple never fully phases out the PPC like everyone is assuming they will be. I can easily see Apple using PPCs in mini-notebooks and such for a LONG time to come. I think Apple will keep the PPC alongside x86 till at the very least 2015.

Besides, that would let Apple switch processors at a whim (in case the PPC suddenly leaps ahead of x86) and give the consumer more options, which are both great benefits.
 
GFLPraxis said:
It depends what Apple does with TCPA.


If the ONLY use for it is to prevent anyone from installing OS X on a non-Apple computer, then good for Apple.

If they try to use the DRM to restrict the users on anything, like M$ is doing with Longhorn, then :mad:

We have been over this many many times already. You will *never* know what a TCPA-plattform in a closed source environment is capable of. The bottom line will then always be: do you trust Apple and its partners with your privacy and rights?
 
DrNeroCF said:
you guys are just whining that pirating movies is going to be harder than it was before.

No.

I'm worried about Hollywood trying to force me to pay every time I watch the movie. I buy movies so I can watch them as many times, or as few, as I want.

I'm worried about Hollywood trying to tell me I can't sell the movie if I decide I don't want it. I bought it and I should be able to sell it just like I can with a VHS, DVD, audio cassette, CD, paper book, etc.

I'm worried about Hollywood trying to take even more rights away from what we have. It used to be that copyright lasted for 17 years. Now it is the life time of the producer plus 75 years. Hollywood wants it to last forever. With the DMCA they have effectively done that by making it illegal to crack their codes. Works should be protected for only a short limited time and then they should go into the public domain. Nothing is created from a vacuum. Works are created with in the social context and should return to society after a short period of protected exclusive control. I speak as both a consumer and a publisher and inventor.

DrNeroCF said:
There's always a way around everything...

That is the good news but it is not good enough. Write your Congressional critters and fight this politically.
 
pubwvj said:
I'm worried about Hollywood trying to take even more rights away from what we have. It used to be that copyright lasted for 17 years. Now it is the life time of the producer plus 75 years. Hollywood wants it to last forever. With the DMCA they have effectively done that by making it illegal to crack their codes. Works should be protected for only a short limited time and then they should go into the public domain. Nothing is created from a vacuum. Works are created with in the social context and should return to society after a short period of protected exclusive control. I speak as both a consumer and a publisher and inventor.

Wow! Well spoken, thoughtfull, and non-offensive. Thank you. I am actually not as concerned about this right now, since the only fact we have right now is that Apple has locked the current dev version of OS/X Intel onto the pre-production hardware that they have shipped. Those boxes are already a very special case, because they are not purchased, but leased, and you are not allowed to keep them beyond the pre-production period.

All we know at this point is that Apple really wanted to lock these boxes down. Well that is no real surprise. And while the fact that they used the DRM they used was a little surprising to me (since the TCPA is universally reviled even in the Windows communities) this is not necessarily indicative of what Apple will do with production versions of their OS. Even Microsoft is wavering a little on what to do with TCPA/TPM, and I doubt Apple has made their decision on it either.
 
Loke said:
And you are attacking an argument which hasn´t been made. Ive never said the CD wouldnt´t exist in the first place if the RIAA had its way. In fact, I never said anything remotely related to the above, so stop being a moron trying to change the premesis of the discussion.

This is what you said:

Loke said:
I dont know if you are a troll, at least you sound like a troll to me, because if the RIAA had it their way there would be no such thing as iPods. They only want you to listen to THEIR CDs on THEIR approved equipment, and if you need one CD in the car and one at home - they´d really prefer it if they could by law make you buy two separate CDs.

So you said it if was up to them, the CD as we know it at least, would not exist. But you have provided absolutely no evidence to back up this argument. You have now added to this the absurd proposition that the RIAA only became important during the CD era. This is ridiculous. The RIAA and ASCAP were very much in existence and quite active long before the 1980s. In fact during the 1970s a neighbor of mine was a detective for ASCAP. His job was to go around to record stores looking for bootleg record albums.

You have also made the argument that the iPod would not exist if they had their wish -- again without evidence. This argument is even more bizarre, if only because the iPod and legally downloadable music would not and could not exist without their agreement.

Incidentally, a word to the wise: name calling is not an acceptable form of debate here. It's a great way to get yourself banned.
 
SeaFox said:
They would be able to sell you multiple copies of the same song because you wouldn't have the ability to take the CD you already paid for and rip it to the iPod you no longer have without getting DRM clearance from them. And if you think they wouldn't try to charge you for the "privilage" of being able to transfer your music, you truly are naive.

It's no big secret that what the music industry really wants is to be able to keep your credit card on file and charge you everytime you play a song. Being able to interface with your computer (bypassing you) is the first step to that.

I want somebody to mail me a check for $1 million every day I get myself out of bed before noon. Strangely enough, nobody seems to be interested.

The music industry is facing declining recorded music sales and declining live concert ticket sales. In this environment they can dream anything they like, but they aren't going to get it.
 
IJ Reilly said:
The music industry is facing declining recorded music sales and declining live concert ticket sales. In this environment they can dream anything they like, but they aren't going to get it.

Well, as someone else here keeps saying, they are the creators, so they can set the term of usage however they wish (supposedly). When the vast majority of music, film, ect comes from these people, not playing by their rules usually means doing without those things completely.

How many general consumers are going to forego music and movies because of this? Few. The rest will grumble, but pony up their extra $1 or $2 a track so they can put their music on the their NuPod.

Maybe if executives looked harder at why record and concert ticket sales are declining (hint: it's not file sharing). Or why movie ticket sales are declining (this one IS something they caused) they wouldn't have to worry so much about people pirating X's new album or getting watching Y: the Movie on their PC after using Bittorent to get it.

The issue here is my being treated like a criminal when I use my computer, despite any evidence of wrong doing. Being presumed innocent until proven guilty is how the justice system works (might want to write that one down broken_keyboard). And the TCPA treats me like I already have done these things and makes my computer experience a "monitored situation".

We don't take guns away from gun owners because they have the ability to kill someone. We assume they will use their gun in a responsible manner, and after they shoot someone and become convicted felons, THEN do we say "you're not allowed to have a gun anymore."
 
I'm not really worried about this.

Why? Because, I've bypassed my XBox and modded it so that content can be ripped to it straight from disc or FTP. I can mod Powermac as well.

No corporation is going to tell me what I can and cannot do with the data I have or want to. If I want five girls going at it either in picture or movie format on all of my devices at home, then I should be able to do that. If I wanna copy CD's and records I bought with MY money, then I will use them and distribute them among my home as I please.

And if an underground band gives me a disc to listen to, and says "pass the demo along to whomever you want" I will do so.

Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, The Pope, My Parents, My Girl, The RIAA/MPAA/BSA, Disney, McDonalds, hell, even GOD won't stop me.

And if you think you can stop me, I say c'mon. Prove it bIOTCH. :D
 
Loke said:
Its the same "show" every time with you Mac-zealots.

In fact, I never said anything remotely related to the above, so stop being a moron trying to change the premesis of the discussion.

[...]

And last, but not least, a very big **** you to IJ Reilley for making me waste 1 hour of my evening proving something we all knew from the start.

Whatever arguments you make are diminished to horse **** when you can't deal with things like an adult and resort to insulting people who disagree. Last time I checked you had to be at least 13 to register for this forum, I wonder how a 12 year old ever got past that...
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.