Mac OS X x86 uses TCPA

[Loke]

Then you don't know what is. The links you provided are to a rant site making unsubstantiated claims about a law that hasn't even passed and to an article which (if read carefully) indicates that the rant site is in fact a rant site making unsubstantiated claims. Nice proof.

LOL..So RIAAs homepage cant be trusted to describe the process theyve been following for the last 30 years? I agree RIAA usually rant on, but come on. I have no trouble believing RIAA when they describe themself. I dont know why you obviously do.

I see, quoting you directly isn't quoting you correctly. Got it.

Make fun if you want - I dont care. But you didnt quote me neither directly or correctly. Stop blaming me for your mistakes, it makes you appear foolish.

 

[rendezvouscp]

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.

Sorry, I have to say something about this. Actually, I'm not sorry, 'cause you're the one in the wrong. I'm not a buddhist, but I'm pretty sure that Buddha never said that. As a Christian though, I can say that Jesus never said to "**** the law." In fact, he said that whatever is the governments, it's theirs, and we have to follow the law of the land. We, collectively speaking of Christians, must also follow what Jesus has laid out as the law.

And if there's conflict between the two? You follow the law as set by Jesus, and then if there are consequences in the law of the land, you pay those.

"BUT, BUT, BUT you just said that you're supposed to follow Jesus no matter what." Sure. But does that mean "**** the law?" No. It doesn't.

As if I'm not already off topic, could an English major please tell me how I should have written my third to last sentence? I'm quoting "**** the law," but in this sentence, is it proper to put the comma inside or outside of the "", since I'm trying to quote something? Hm, I feel like I answered my own question, but it'd be great if someone that's actually a professional in English could correct me.

Ok, I think I'll go on topic now. I'm all for TCPA, because I don't think that Apple, specifically Steve Jobs, will mess with consumers. Sure they have to put DRM in, but does that actually hurt anyone that uses the music legally? (Actually, I think it does, since I'm working on a music composition right now, but that's beside my point, since there are ways around it). I don't think that Apple is planning to watch over our moves; I think that they just want to protect their product.

Apple was founded by hippies, "hippiness" runs throughout Apple today, and I don't think that we're going to see anything bad in terms of DRM from Apple. I really don't. Call me ignorant, call me stupid, but I don't think that Apple would follow through with the possibilities being described in this thread. But the day I'm wrong is the day that I continue to use my PM G5, just like I have for almost two years.
-Chase

 

[pubwvj]

I believe in humans, and I believe that humans act the best way they know at all times. I dont think the reason for file sharing is because people are cheap or whatever. I think its because its convenient, and the media producers failed to provide convenient solutions when they had the chance. This essentially created the situation we have today, and I blame the media producers 100% for this while they blame the "pirates".

Hmm... A recent study said that almost all of the piracy is being done in places like China and for profit. Part of the point of the study was that the filesharing was only a tiny part of the total piracy problem. The other part of that to note is that most of the piracy is being done for profit by greeding human beings who are definitely not acting "the best way they know at all times"!

Please note that I am not defending RIAA or Hollywood in the slightest with my comments above! They are greedy just like the real pirates. Both of them are ripping off the consumers and artists.

 

[pubwvj]

I agree, the DCMA sucks -- it's the pure product of corporate greed processed through politics. The point is, they're bailing into a rising tide. I have some confidence that the tighter the industrialist types try to turn the thumbscrews on creative content, the more the artists will bypass the corporations entirely, and take their art directly to their audiences.

That is the beauty of free markets. Which is why RIAA and Hollywood are trying to legislate against free market capitalism with their beefing up of copyright law with the DCMA and its ilk.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Make fun if you want - I dont care. But you didnt quote me neither directly or correctly. Stop blaming me for your mistakes, it makes you appear foolish.

I quoted you verbatim. I think at this point even you are losing track of what you're arguing. I sure have.

 

[IJ Reilly]

That is the beauty of free markets. Which is why RIAA and Hollywood are trying to legislate against free market capitalism with their beefing up of copyright law with the DCMA and its ilk.

They can try to change copyright laws all they like, but it won't have any impact on people who aren't interested in having their intellectual property protected in ways that annoy and frustrate consumers. No artist who publishes their own music, for instance, will be forced to use DRM schemes of any kind unless they want to use them.

That gets us back to the subject of this thread, more or less. Even if the upcoming Macs have the ability to implement Palladium technology, that doesn't necessarily mean it will be used for Draconian intellectual property protection schemes, as some people automatically assume it will, because all uses of DRM come with serious risks of consumer rejection. I think Apple has shown a desire to strike a balance between consumer rights and intellectual rights, so I'm willing to see how they handle it before I start pulling all the alarm bells.

If for instance Apple was able to devise a method for selling movie downloads with similar restrictions to the ITMS, I suspect it would be a success and few would gripe about it, except for the "free as in beer" crowd. But they seem to complain about paying for everything, and don't believe anybody is entitled to intellectual property rights. No chance they will ever be satisfied anyway.

 

[gekko513]

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...

Agree ... that's also why I chose not to participate in this as a serious discussion. On the other hand, a real flame war can be kind of entertaining.

 

[alex_ant]

I believe in humans, and I believe that humans act the best way they know at all times. I dont think the reason for file sharing is because people are cheap or whatever. I think its because its convenient, and the media producers failed to provide convenient solutions when they had the chance. This essentially created the situation we have today, and I blame the media producers 100% for this while they blame the "pirates".

What could possibly be more convenient than bittorrent? Terabytes of copyrighted material at people's fingertips, as much as their bandwidth allows, 24/7, at no cost. Of course, most of this stuff they wouldn't buy anyway, but since it's ALL free, what incentive to do they have to pay for ANY of it legally? I'm the RIAA, how can I compete with that? I can't. What am I supposed to do? I am honestly interested in knowing the answer. What is your proposal to protect the rights of everyone involved? Surely you have one and are not just wasting everyone's time railing against the evil corporations and governments and so on and so forth which is getting you nowhere?

I think you conveniently choose to forget what brought on this whole DRM mess: a mass unchecked worldwide piracy surge over the past decade that has cost content producers large and small probably billions of dollars in lost sales. And it's all THEIR fault apparently, because they couldn't put their entire content library on the internet for free or nearly free to make it competitive with p2p, usenet, etc. But piracy is generally okay, apparently, because a few record and movie executives already have plenty of money, and when we pirate content, we hurt ONLY them, and not, for example, the key grip or the lighting tech or the studio hand or any of the other thousands of people involved in bringing all this content to market. Yeah....... right.

So I'm interested in all the details of this solution you have.

 

[alex_ant]

You have been appointed King of the MPAA!

And you are pissing yourself, because you just read in the newspaper that all this stuff is happening:

- Hard drives continue to grow and grow
- P2P indexing and searching is improving
- Broadband subscriptions continue to grow all over the world, and speeds are getting faster and faster
- P2P transfers are getting more reliable
- Higher resolution screens, faster processors and more video horsepower is making HD piracy a reality
- Computer HD tuners are allowing perfect digital copies of all OTA and QAM cable HDTV broadcasts
- Now that CSS is broken, ripping perfect copies of DVDs is a piece of cake
- P2P use is rising, increasing the pool of available content
- P2P network design is becoming more stable and scalable, with identity cloaking in place on a growing number of networks, allowing pirates to pirate invisibly
- All P2P networks are still 100% FREE OF CHARGE

You're the king of the MPAA and the livelihood of you and hundreds of thousands of people who depend on you are on the line. What do you do?

 

[weg]

Isn't it just a system to ensure that OSX stays attached to Apple hardware? Isn't that how it's always been? Isn't that how we WANT it to be?

I for one always want to have an advantage for the USER whenever some new technology is used, because the USER will pay for it. With TCPA, I only see an advantage for the vendor. So why should I actually be glad about Apple using TCPA????

 

[iMeowbot]

What could possibly be more convenient than bittorrent?

MPAA members agree with you.

 

[Loke]

What could possibly be more convenient than bittorrent? Terabytes of copyrighted material at people's fingertips, as much as their bandwidth allows, 24/7, at no cost. Of course, most of this stuff they wouldn't buy anyway, but since it's ALL free, what incentive to do they have to pay for ANY of it legally? I'm the RIAA, how can I compete with that?

Ok, fair arguments here. But following your path would indicate that iTunes should not have been successful because everyone would be using BitTorrent. And we know that its not true. And if I can keep your attention span for a little longer, it is also reasonable to assume that if customers had a choice regarding DRM in iTMS, none of them would really want it. Despite all this millions of users use iTMS with DRM. Now why is that? Is it not because the iTMS is convenient? So the logical conclusion of your arguing would be that the iTunes Music Store would be even more succesful if it didnt deploy DRM at all.

 

[broken_keyboard]

In your example, you are assuming that no one has any rights, that these have to be specifically granted.

I am assuming that no one has any automatic rights to a creation except the creator. If he then wants to sign those rights away, he can, but he needs to specify in the contract whether anything not mentioned is assumed to be granted or not. If a society has a particular default position in this regard, that is fine, as long as he knows what it is, and it is only a default that he can override.

What is not fine, is when laws are passed that say he HAS to give away certain rights to his creation, regardless of what he thinks. (for example saying he can not use DRM). It is wrong because he EARNED the rights by creating the thing, therefore such a law must be giving the unearned.

 

[dernhelm]

So the logical conclusion of your arguing would be that the iTunes Music Store would be even more succesful if it didnt deploy DRM at all.

Except for the fact that it would never have gotten off the ground, because it would have done nothing to help stem the tide of music piracy.

I understand the problems with DRM and I definitely understand the problems with the RIAA. But the fact remains that none of the affected parties (artists or RIAA-zombies) is happy about music piracy. And they saw ripped and downloaded music as "the enemy" since it made piracy a little too easy. The iTMS was a "middle ground" solution where the RIAA and through them, the artists, got compensated a little more than they otherwise would have.

Now if you want to fix the problem of the RIAA raping the artists and consumers for the last 60 years, you need to get them legislated out of existance. Right now they have the legal right to a stranglehold on the recording industry and nothing will get better until that is changed. So all you activists out there - have at it!

And while you're at it, work on getting TicketMaster out of my pocket as well...

 

[peterjhill]

Grow up... In the United States it is perfectly reasonable for someone who wants to make money from their intellectual property to make it harder for thieves to steal their hard work and give it away...

Unless Apple really changes the OS, You will till be able to use gcc and compile all the apps that you want.

I am sure that you will still be able to create your own content... dvds, music, text docs, all free of DRM...

I find Steve Jobs very entertaining... but I understand that his job is to sell things..

Peter

Mock Richard Stallman all you want, at least he´s got principles while the average Mac-zealot is a member of the biggest sheep herd Ive ever seen. Its the same "show" every time with you Mac-zealots. When Apple switched to Intel, it was very amusing to sit and read about the zealots talking to and eventually persuading themselves that Intel is much better than PowerPC after all. 1 day earlier PowerPC was the best thing since sliced bread. It had all the classical symptoms: Shock -> Denial -> Anger -> Sadness -> Acceptance -> Cheering.

A quick forum search reveals interesting discussions in the past, like SeaFox points out. And just about everyone expressed how delighted they were the Mac platform didnt have TCPA, and how MS customers were getting screwed bigtime etc. Now that TCPA has hit the Mac platform bigtime - in fact many times bigger than ANYWHERE in the computing technology scene up untill now - TCPA is wowed as a good thing, because it will protect your precious.

It has become painfully clear to me that the wast majority of you will believe just about anything Steve Jobs say, even when it involves stripping you of your privacy and rights. Its like you all are disbelievers of what is possible with this technology today, and you lull and comfort yourselves into believing corporations actually care about you. You seem to be in denial, still not able to comprehend just how genious and clever this move by Apple has been - from a corporate point of view.

The day we stop worrying over our privacy and rights, we have already lost it all. I ask you again: How do YOU know what a TPM module on a Mac can do and cant do, will do and wont do? Are you prepared to trust Apple and its associates in RIAA/MPAA, and let them dictate the behaviour of the TPM chip? Are you prepared to hand over the steering wheel to someone else, and close your eyes? Because that is the painfull reality you have to accept right now.

 

[pubwvj]

Grow up...

Nastyness like that really isn't necessary.

In the United States it is perfectly reasonable for someone who wants to make money from their intellectual property to make it harder for thieves to steal their hard work and give it away...

The way the copyright laws work, the creator of a copyrighted work is given protected exclusive control, within certain limits allowing for fair-use, for limited period of time. The the work must go into the public domain. Read the law for the details.

 

[IJ Reilly]

I am assuming that no one has any automatic rights to a creation except the creator. If he then wants to sign those rights away, he can, but he needs to specify in the contract whether anything not mentioned is assumed to be granted or not. If a society has a particular default position in this regard, that is fine, as long as he knows what it is, and it is only a default that he can override.

What is not fine, is when laws are passed that say he HAS to give away certain rights to his creation, regardless of what he thinks. (for example saying he can not use DRM). It is wrong because he EARNED the rights by creating the thing, therefore such a law must be giving the unearned.

Yes indeed. Maybe we haven't seen eye-to-eye about many things in the past, but I agree with you entirely on this one.

 

[Starfury]

I am assuming that no one has any automatic rights to a creation except the creator. If he then wants to sign those rights away, he can, but he needs to specify in the contract whether anything not mentioned is assumed to be granted or not. If a society has a particular default position in this regard, that is fine, as long as he knows what it is, and it is only a default that he can override.

What is not fine, is when laws are passed that say he HAS to give away certain rights to his creation, regardless of what he thinks. (for example saying he can not use DRM). It is wrong because he EARNED the rights by creating the thing, therefore such a law must be giving the unearned.

I don't disagree with the principle behind your argument, which (if I have understood correctly) is that individuals maintain intellectual copyright over their creations (be they novels or musical performances).

Where is don't understand is when you say "laws are passed that say he HAS to give away certain rights to his creation". I don't think that there are any countries or circumstances where a governing body has legislated to take away intellectual copyright. I certainly can't think of any examples of this happening, however I'm not an expert in this field, so would be very interested in any examples you can share.

To return to the point in my original post, generally (and very crudely) laws are about preventing people from doing certain things. To take the Norway example again, I don't think you can imply that the absence of a law preventing DVD backups, or sharing a CD with friends, is the same as legislating that an individual has to give up his intellectual copyright.

Having said this, your argument becomes clearer when you say "for example saying he can not use DRM". Here (and apologies if I've misunderstood) your position appears to be that DRM is necessary for an author to maintain intellectual copyright over their work. This isn't correct.

Let's take my house as an example. I can choose to lock it with sophisticated anti-theft devices, or to leave it unlocked. No matter which option I choose, my house (and its contents) remains mine. If someone opens the door and takes my television, it is illegal whether or not I have locked the door. Just as locks don't determine my ownership of my house, DRM doesn't determine someone's intellectual copyright over a creation.

And DRM (or a house lock) is one thing. But imagine that you no longer have control over your house. That the company that built it has ultimate control - they can lock you out if they want, they can stop you plugging in the television of my choosing, they can prevent you from watching your home videos on my DVD player. This is Trusted Computing.

This is why many people have a problem with the concept. The real question is do the benefits outweigh the disadvantages?

 

[SeaFox]

I am assuming that no one has any automatic rights to a creation except the creator.

That would be correct.

If he then wants to sign those rights away, he can, but he needs to specify in the contract whether anything not mentioned is assumed to be granted or not. If a society has a particular default position in this regard, that is fine, as long as he knows what it is, and it is only a default that he can override.

See, this is the problem. Fair use is the default position in many countries. The RIAA/MPAA are aware of it, and have been since they raised a ruckus over people using cassette players to make mix tapes.

Fair Use does not include sharing your files over the internet. But it does include things like making backup copies of CD's to protect against accidental distruction/degradation, making mix tapes, ect.

The DRM they are adding is preventing people from using their purchase as they wish under Fair Use. And the TCPA allows them to enforce this DRM retroactively. They can take away one's right to make a second copy (for their car) of the CD they bought five years ago, that one had the ability to do before. This would be changing the contract the buyer and studio entered into when they made the purchase. The buyer assuming he could use the product in the above described method.

This is also why the current DRMed CD's can not be called "Compact Discs". The CD's no longer match the specifications for a Compact Disc according to the holder of that trademark (Phillips). Phillips does not want those products to be associated with it's trademarks because that implies a level of interoperability, and an implied level of Fair Use, that those DRMed CD's do not offer.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Fair use doctrine is tricky. You'd need a copyright and patents lawyer to explain it, and even then, grey areas would emerge -- even without considering the DMCA.

Not long ago it was routine procedure for college professors to make up "readers" for their courses, filled with copies of journal articles and chapters of books. It was considered fair use, and nobody challenged the practice. Then it was challenged, and now it can no longer be done legally.

Can you legally pull a book off a library shelf and photocopy the entire thing, even if it's only for you own use? No, you can't. Then how much of it can you copy? Some of it for certain, but how much, nobody really knows. And yet, most libraries have photocopiers right there, at the ready, inviting you to break the law.

If you're looking for bright lines, you aren't going to find them.

 

[After G]

Time to add my two cents ... though this isn't completely informed, and I didn't do pages and pages of research, I hope some find this enlightening.

No DRM is bad for everyone. There is DRM in physical systems, like CDs and books, in the time and difficulty involved to convert them to digital format, where they are easy to copy. It is just that we are used to it because the interaction is natural. Everyone just "knows", for example, that the effort required to photocopy a book, or to build your own chair, is probably not worth the $5 to $10 you might save doing it, and yet there are those that do take that effort. It is hard to imagine, but if file-sharing ever became like "stop by the store and pick up your free exact same quality as the original Harry Potter book, without paying the publishers, or J.K. Rowling" then I could see content-creation going down the drain. The problem with the current state of file-sharing is that it doesn't seem to hurt, because it is being subsidized by overly-high prices in other areas (hardware, movie theater, what have you) and the artists are still getting paid. Once this subsidy stops, the true problem with file-sharing will be evident.

The problem with open-source and Richard Stallman types is that they already get paid doing whatever work they do when they are not advocating open-source. The reason companies can support open-source is that they can blame the open-source guys if something goes wrong, and it's free labor. IBM doesn't have to spend time tweaking the operating system of their servers, and can devote more R&D to hardware. The open-source people can give their work away for free because they don't make any money off of it, instead using their DAY JOBS to fund their exploits. And even open-source companies are trying to get paid as well (through letting you buy their CDs, offering service & support, etc.)

What is wrong with the current system is not as simple as "DRM and corporations are evil, ban them all." It is the underlying greed that drives companies to limit consumer rights through tactics such as DRM in order to maintain profit for stockholders. This use of greed to drive business is deplorable to me. But I don't see any easy way to change that, even though I've been trying to figure out one for the longest time. Everyone is locked into this "something for nothing" mentality, and using these less-desirable motivations of people is bound to lead somewhere bad.

The only reasonable way I see any of this hardware-lock/DRM/protection scheme working is if both consumers and producers of content work together to make it happen. Then we can keep out the things consumers don't want (like paying for every manipulation of content) and put the things in that might be good (lock out malware/allowance for fair creative uses/secure direct payment system for creators/etc). I think the iTunes store succeeds because of this balance between consumer and content creator, and the fact that it is darned convenient. The problem I see with people at both ends of the copyright argument is that it's all or nothing for them. It doesn't have to be that way.

There are good things to be had with DRM. I just will not take the time to explain them unless I have to, though I have given hints about what can be done.

 

[csubear]

Normally I stay out of these type of discussion, but I have to disagree with any one who is siding with the RIAA, or MPAA concerning DRM or DMCA.

Its plain and simple. When I buy Intellectual Property from these folks I am buy the right to view and listen to the content. I am also buy the media, and the bits on the media. What I am not buying is the right to redistribute the IP.

Strict DRM and the DMCA strip away my rights concerning my property. Once that disc is sold to me I own those bit and should be able to copy those bit to other media for play back on different playback technology. Now if I redistribute the IP then I am violating the IP owners rights. When I purchase a cd or dvd I am not agreeing to any TOS or license agreement. I do not give up any rights to the physical media.

The way i see it, when I purchase something, be it media or hardware, I should be able to do with it what i please.(Unless i agree to a license agreement that was fully disclosed at time of purchase, and I am not violating the owners IP copyright).

If I want to rip a cd to acc for my ipod, i should be able to. If I want to rip my dvd to a file server for central playback I should be able to. If I want to rip apart or mod some piece of hardware I should be able to.

Strict DRM and the DMCA takes those rights away for me.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Problem is, you've never actually had these rights. When you buy a piece of software, you only own a license to use it, nothing more. You can't do "whatever you like" with it. Hardly anyone complains about this state of affairs because by in large they are still able to use the product in a way which is useful to them, and therefore is worth the price they paid to use it. All intellectual property is restricted in some similar way if for no other reason than somebody owns it -- and that somebody is not the end consumer, it's the creator.

 

[csubear]

Problem is, you've never actually had these rights. When you buy a piece of software, you only own a license to use it, nothing more. You can't do "whatever you like" with it. Hardly anyone complains about this state of affairs because by in large they are still able to use the product in a way which is useful to them, and therefore is worth the price they paid to use it. All intellectual property is restricted in some similar way if for no other reason than somebody owns it -- and that somebody is not the end consumer, it's the creator.

I didn't say software. If you read my post

Unless i agree to a license agreement that was fully disclosed at time of purchase, and I am not violating the owners IP copyright

so that excludes software mostly, but not other things

 

[pubwvj]

Can you legally pull a book off a library shelf and photocopy the entire thing, even if it's only for you own use? No, you can't. Then how much of it can you copy? Some of it for certain, but how much, nobody really knows. And yet, most libraries have photocopiers right there, at the ready, inviting you to break the law.

Yes, literally, but not practically. Libraries charge 25 cents or more per page. That's per face page, not front and back. So if you go and copy a typical book of 300 pages it is going to set you back $75 and you get an inferior copy. It is rare that a book costs that much so copying entire books would be stupid and people don't bother doing it.

People read the book at the library, maybe they make a copy of a few pages for reference and study later for doing a term paper, etc and often, like me, they go out and buy books that they first read at the library.

Libraries increase the sales of books. Book publishers love getting their books into libraries for this reason. I know, I'm a publisher and author.