Movielink Snubs DRM-less Macs 531
A user writes "CNET reports that the Macintosh is being shut out of online movie services like Movielink, and connects it to the Mac's lack of digital-rights management. From the article: '[Apple VP] Schiller says Apple has not released much in the way of protective technology ... because effective techniques for securing content without interfering with the experience of consumers have not yet been invented.' A consumer-friendly attitude towards DRM may be a double-edged sword (content may not be made available for that platform), but if the content is locked out of the Mac for that reason, do I really want it anyway?" In other news, the USSR provided free bread only to the poor people.
Get ready. (Score:2, Insightful)
Paladium, here we come.
Re:Get ready. (Score:3, Interesting)
The difference is that countries get pissed off (*cough* Australia legalizing bypassing region code restrictions, *cough* Canada and satellite TV) about this sort of stuff and turn a blind eye to bypassing.
You then have a bunch of types that would never blow time trying to bypass copy protection running out and working on doing so. Before it was just the Linux folks. Now it's the Mac folks.
I hope those DRM coders aren't making any mistakes in any of their code or design, or it's gonna get exploited to hell.
And I'm going to miss this how? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And I'm going to miss this how? (Score:3, Insightful)
OTOH, with my TiG4 + extra batteries, I can fly coast to coast without having to watch "You've got mail" or whatever drek is being shoveled out over the airline miniscreens...
Last trip was given to the Mr. Show and Criterion Beastie Boys DVD sets.. (and widescreen discs are even nicer on the wide Ti..)
Re:And I'm going to miss this how? (Score:4, Funny)
MY solution was to bring a good science fiction novel with me. It doesn't require electricity, it's much more interesting than anything you'll see on DVD, and you don't have to worry about it getting damaged (books are pretty tough).
A side benefit is, that dufus they crammed next to you in the seat is a lot less likely to annoy you by craning his neck over if you're not running a midget movie theater. About the most you'll get is "whatcha readin'?" which you can deal with by supplying an unsettling stare and the reply, "A book about an airline passenger who poisons one of his fellow passengers -- Oh, LOOK! Your soda and nuts are here!" (this last said with an inexplicable brightening of your expression and a big smile. Make sure you stare at the person while he/she eats).
Um... Never mind.
Re:And I'm going to miss this how? (Score:4, Funny)
I always read books about air disasters when riding on aircraft.
it's interesting
it keeps the people in the adjacent seats quiet
the plane is less likely to crash, because the gods of flying have a sense of humor
Not all of us live in dorm rooms (Score:3, Insightful)
I had an HTPC hooked up to my system, wasn't worth the trouble. However, your computer can't compare to a reasonable home theater system.
Projectors can be powered via computer, terrific. If you are blowing it up on a projector, you're NOT going to want DivX or other crap. You're going to want a MINIMUM of DVD quality, to minimize the MPEG artifacts.
An HTPC can power a projector quite nicely (there was a Yamaha that I fell in love with at Tweeter, but can't justify dropping $10k on it...), scaling video from DVDs up to 720p, etc., but it doesn't change the fact that you are customizing a computer to serve as AV equipment.
Sorry, but a cheap 27" television, w/ mediocre DVD player, and a low-low-low end surround sound system (we're talking $500 total) is going to blow away watching a computer monitor with "AWESOME" computer speakers.
A reasonable HT system ($5k-$10k, so midrange) really blows it away, and the good systems are even more impressive.
Alex
DRM's dirty little secret (Score:5, Insightful)
The answer is to make reliable, quality, fairly price downloads available. Don't assume your customers want to be criminals.
Re:DRM's dirty little secret (Score:5, Funny)
That statement does not follow the mantra of Microsoft, hence it is wrong.
Don't you guys pay attention
Re:DRM's dirty little secret (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft might *encourage* the mentality, but Microsoft encourages a lot of stupid mentalities. The MPA/RIAA are the problem, not Microsoft. It's the MPA/RIAA that are pushing for insane copyright measures. I know it's fun to hate Microsoft, but let's not let it detract from the people we should *REALLY* be hating.
-Sara
Re:DRM's dirty little secret (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, boycots work. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:DRM's dirty little secret (Score:4, Insightful)
You get more prison time for practicing fair use if it involves a copyright circumvention device then actually robing a store and stealing the movie. Its both disgusting and horrible. And if we do not buy into this crap then the RIAA/MPAA will blame it on piracy and write even stricter laws and force the digital computer hubs of the future into a windows only world!
All your components will be hooked up to other home appliances. This is why Microsoft is pushing
Re:DRM's dirty little secret (Score:3, Insightful)
And what, exactly, is wrong with having more stuff along the lines of Britney? I think she's cute, and one of her isn't enough to go around... ;-)
Re:DRM's dirty little secret (Score:5, Interesting)
It doesn't matter if its true or not, Gates/Ballmer are telling them what they want to hear.
Re:DRM's dirty little secret (Score:2)
Re:DRM's dirty little secret (Score:5, Informative)
OF course for how long it will still work, I have no idea.
Re:DRM's dirty little secret (Score:4, Interesting)
If you crack even the stupidest DRM technology, you have violated the DMCA. Therefore, there's no need to make a bulletproof DRM technology, just a stupid one with lawyers to back it up. That seems to be good enough for Hollywood.
Re:DRM's dirty little secret (Score:4, Insightful)
This is actually a good thing. Let's say you are trying to protect your house. Do you want the law to state that you must have an impenetrable fortress and if someone breaks in, tough luck?? Not having the strongest protection scheme should make a break-in (or cracking) any less illegal or wrong. If you think it should, next time someone breaks in to you house you should be saying "Well, I had it coming; I should have barred my windows and doors."
Re:DRM's dirty little secret (Score:4, Funny)
I should still be allowed to make a backup copy of my CD....that's not quite breaking into someone's house.
If you reply to this message, I'll sue you.
Re:DRM's dirty little secret (Score:3, Insightful)
Because making a backup copy of anything you own is protected under U.S. Copyright law. Nobody is getting shafted. There's a difference between breaking a lock on somebody else's house and breaking the lock on your own. Making a backup copy is more like the latter.
Stop decoding my ascii (Score:3, Funny)
Hello.
There. If you were able to read the above line, you just broke the law under the DMCA. Who cares that ASCII isn't very good encryption because every Tom, Dick, and Harry has tons of software that renders it into human readable form. According to the DMCA, how widespread the decryption knowlege is is not relevant to the issue.
Wrong... (Score:3, Informative)
In order for this to be a proper analogy, it should go like this, "Well, I had it coming; I shouldn't have left all the doors and windows and the gate OPEN, and the door to the safe held shut with a 3-inch piece of masking tape." Depending on how stupid the DRM technology is, it could actually go more like this, "Well, I had it coming, I shouldn't have hung paper bags full of money on the outside of my fence, with a note saying, 'Opening these paper bags full of money is a violation of the DMCA.'"
The law doesn't expect you to have an impenetrable fortress for a house in order to receive legal protection, but it also doesn't have much respect for the opposite end of the spectrum. That's why we have legal ideas like criminal negligance and why people are expected to take "reasonable measures" to protect their property.
Now, when someone sells you something, like a DVD, it becomes your property. Except the DRM supporters want to be able to still treat it like *their* property, after you buy it, and be able to revoke ownership if the product isn't used in a way that they like. They also want to be able to do a strip-and-cavity search on every customer that enters their store to purchase their products. I imagine a grocery store that did that wouldn't last too long.
Re:DRM's dirty little secret (Score:5, Insightful)
If your customer tells you he wants his product to do x, then you give him a piece of software that will do x, even if you know he really wants y and z.
Case in point... DeCSS. The entire CSS scheme, which is fairly robust on its surface, revolved around having a secret key... a secret key that was going to be included in millions of decoder chips and in hundreds of software releases available to millions of people.
All the technical genius in the world can see that the second the key was in the hands of the public in one way or the other, it would be copied and it would be redistributed. The only reason that Jon Johansen got in trouble was because he was a kid and really didn't understand how many powerful entities he was upsetting when he released DeCSS. A person who had to copy the key off of a eprom or decrypt it out of DVD player firmware would probably understand a little better than someone who took a debugger to RealPlayer and found the key there, unencrypted.
The developers of the DeCSS scheme *knew* this would happen, as did the technical minds that came up with the CD watermarking protection scheme. Their bosses, the ones directing the development pretended like they didn't know, but you know they did.
Re:Unfortunately, this isn't true (Score:3, Interesting)
We are the consumers, they need to flog their stuff to us. What happens if we don't _buy_ DRM tech? Right, it fizzles, just like the millions of dollars that people invested in it.
They are forgetting what a consumer really wants: A convenient way to watch their movies/listen to music. DRM will complicate things, so consumers might get burned by this once, and never buy content from an outlet that supports Digital Restrictions Manglement again.
Software DRM will be around for quite a while though, since many people will still have "old" machines laying around.
I'm going to enjoy watching this turkey fizzle.
Re:Unfortunately, this isn't true (Score:3, Informative)
Which do you buy?
Re:DRM's dirty little secret (Score:5, Insightful)
The initial askind for ID is more like the Product Key - making sure you have the right to use the product.
The Activation is like being asked for your ID every time you open the bottle of liquor in your house.
I understand their motivation. Most people don't frig around with their computers enough to be bothered by this, and it helps them prevent some level of misuse.
(I know I'll get responses to this one...)
I dare say that more people were angered because they couldn't steal the software as easily than because they were serious upgrade fiends.
It does negatively affect people who have legal copies of the software and like to upgrade their computers. I would be in that group if I didn't still use Windows 98 for my PC.
Are we at a point where companies are expected not to do things in their best interests? DRM, if implemented well, could be a painless thing. Now I agree it's not implemented well, and shouldn't been pushed on people until such time. But then, if we held to that theory, no one would be using half the stuff out there. WPA, it's not too painful - (among other things the telephone part could be better - transition the alpha-numeric code into simple sentances or something easier to deal with...) and yet we still scream about Microsoft being manipulative bastards.
Well, yes, they are. And it's not reasonable for Microsoft to want to know what's in my computer (hardware-wise) at any given time. But there are millions of people using Windows who have never seen a Windows CD out of it's box, much less touched a Genuine Microsoft CD.
What Microsoft should really do to increase legal customer base is offer an amnesty period to people who have illegal copies of Windows. They should offer a downloadable program (something like WPA) that specs your computer and allows the purchase of one copy of Windows for $100. And that should be tracked, quite well, to catch offenders.
--
Some of the things I've said may not apply to you.
Some of the things I've said may offend you.
But no matter who you are,
You MUST REMEMBER this ONE THING [reallyrics.com]:
--
My Other Shirt Is An Armani [zazzle.com]
Re:DRM's dirty little secret (Score:3, Insightful)
Quote too long (Score:5, Insightful)
The correct quote is "Effect techniques for securing content have not yet been invented."
another quote (Score:5, Insightful)
so the article is saying that there will be no movies for mac because there's no DRM on mac, and people could copy the movies, burn them to DVDs, upload them onto a windows machine, and put them on P2P networks??
silly hollywood.
Re:Quote too long (Score:3, Funny)
eh? (Score:2, Interesting)
In other news, the USSR provided free bread only to the poor people.
What does that mean? Are the content providers the USSR? And Windows users are poor people? No, that's not right, because you still have to pay for the content.
This is more like refusing to sell bread to brown-skinned people because "everybody knows they're all criminals".
Re:eh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yet here, MovieLink (which is another word for "a group the major content owners") is bypassing Macintosh users because Apple refuses to develop a DRM technology because all DRM would do is limit the functionaility of their products in ways that are unfavorable to the people who buy their products. This, instead of say, MovieLink hiring tech staff to create its own DRM solution... bearing the costs of doing so themselves instead of trying to stick Apple with the bill.
BTW... who's working on the DRM technology so MovieLink will see fit to offer their services to users of Linux. Anybody? Anybody at all?
Oh darn! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oh darn! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oh darn! (Score:3, Insightful)
It might be the MPAA's intent for it to fail and so they intentionally charge a price that fewer people are going to pay so they can
A: point at the p2p networks and say "See we offered the movies legally to them but they still stole it"
or B: lessen the choice for people who aren't going to copy it off of P2P where they will always go to the video store so that the MPAA can point at sales and say "See law-abiding citizens want to go to the movie store" so they don't have to further develop the technology to deliver movies over the net.
I'll take 'C' all of the above.
*/conspiracy theory*
I want my content (Score:2, Troll)
Whether you want the content has more to do with how good it is and how much you like that kind of thing. Only a tiny percentage of PC users will be upset that the content isn't available on the Mac and stop buying it out of protest. These are the same 5 people who stopped buying grapes during the boycott.
If human beings suffering back-breaking labor won't impress people, why should we care about a few dilletantes who can't download their favorite movies because they had to have a Mac?
Re:I want my content (Score:4, Informative)
Listen... (Score:5, Interesting)
Seriously though... I applaud Apple for keeping their machines DRM free. Yes, I would love to see a day when I can cheaply buy content, put it where I want, and enjoy it within the limits I paid for it (daily, weekly, or forever) etc. But if you insist I have Media Player 9, which is poorly written, has a horrific UI, crashes, and dials "home" to MS whenever I play a CD or DVD (and this is NOT just to get title and track names) then I would rather NOT have that DRM on my box.
Good luck apple, you will need it. Educate the idiotic stock analysts so they know WHY DRM is missing from a Mac, and NOT that "Macs are broken! Sell! Sell!"
When Apples Introduces DRM... (Score:5, Interesting)
So Apple supports the idea of DRM, just not the implementation? That's just as bad if you ask me, and I also think this looks new. In the past, I've only seen Apple on the side of "no DRM" -- now it seems they would be willing to implement DRM if it were done in a way that doesn't interfere with the user experience?
Just an observation.
Re:When Apples Introduces DRM... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:When Apples Introduces DRM... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:When Apples Introduces DRM... (Score:5, Insightful)
Please stop mindlessly repeating the PR party line of movie studios. This isn't about artists, this is about the profits of big corporations.
Judging by what we have seen so far Apple promotes fair use but expects people to not steal things.
What about consumer rights? If I pay for a piece of copyrighted content, I have a right to fair use of that content. DRM keeps me from that.
Re:When Apples Introduces DRM... (Score:4, Insightful)
If I pay for a piece of copyrighted content, I have a right to fair use of that content. DRM keeps me from that.
Which is exactly what Apple is talking about with their "user experience" line. If someone can come up with a rights management system that doesn't interfere with fair use, I'm sure that Apple (and some of the folks around here) will be all for it. The question is : is this a technological problem, or a social one?
Re:When Apples Introduces DRM... (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not so sure. I suspect that if, for example, Quicktime was the standard video format on PCs and set top boxes, Apple would be happy with the user experience even in the presence of DRM--after all, almost everybody could view the stuff almost everywhere.
Fair use means that I can convert the content into formats that Microsoft, Apple, or Hollywood may not like, as long as I don't redistribute it.
If someone can come up with a rights management system that doesn't interfere with fair use, I'm sure that Apple (and some of the folks around here) will be all for it. The question is : is this a technological problem, or a social one?
There is no such system. Fair use means that I should be able to convert the video into formats of my choosing, and that includes non-DRM formats. It's logically impossible to have what one might traditionally consider "fair use" and DRM co-exist. They can only co-exist if you limit the meaning of "fair use".
Re:When Apples Introduces DRM... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not supposed to work like that for copyrights, and for good reason: publishers would collude to eliminate fair use if they could. For books, we warded off that threat, but for on-line movies, it is happening.
More generally, you cannot waive arbitrary rights in contracts; many rights are guaranteed to you no matter what the contract says. Fair use has traditionally been such a right, and it should continue to be for digital media.
If DRM bugs you though, the obvious answer is not to buy into it.
That's a free market argument. The problem is that there is no free, competitive market in movies. I don't have a wide choice of sellers for equivalent products and I can't negotiate conditions with individual sellers. It's a take-it-or-leave-it proposition.
You can justify any monopoly with your kinds of libertarian platitudes. But the fact is that if we want a free market, we need to regulate things like copyright and fair use carefully.
Re:When Apples Introduces DRM... (Score:4, Informative)
For a more detailed explanation, take a look here:
http://www.eff.org/cafe/gross1.html [eff.org]
Re:When Apples Introduces DRM... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:When Apples Introduces DRM... (Score:5, Insightful)
Erm, hm. That's a strange interpretation.
I think what Schiller is saying is 'Apple supports the idea that artists should get paid for their works. Apple recognizes that no one has figured out an effective way to do this yet.'
This is basically the line in the sand where we see if Apple really has balls. If content (with demand, mind you - Movielink is a bad joke) starts to appear regularly with DRM embedded, we'll see if Apple sticks to their guns. It may save them in the end if they do.
Re:When Apples Introduces DRM... (Score:5, Insightful)
Secondly (and much more important), the "user experience" you mention is actually synonymous with a user's fair use rights. Apple finds the idea of protecting artists' work a good one, but not at the expense of fair use rights. Apple sells the iPod. Apple sells Apple-branded Superdrives. But at the bottom of all those commercials are the words "Don't Steal Music." Apple has never taken a friendly stance toward piracy. They are friendly towards consumers, however.
Re:When Apples Introduces DRM... (Score:5, Interesting)
not tracking or tethering the user in any way
I buy. I leave the store. End of story.
allowing the user to view the content on any machine
Any old eyeballs will do
allow the user to study and learn about the encoding scheme used
Read books on language, typesetting, bookbinding etc.
allowing the user to copy the content for his own use, or to give to friends
Photocopyer, writing, speaking into a microphone as you read. And then give the output or the original to friends.
allowing the user to create new collage-type works for the purposes of satire or commentary
Scissors
allow the user to re-sell the content when he's through with it
Used book stores.
yet prevent China-type mass "piracy"
Publishers are still in business, so it must be working for them.
Seriously, the ultimate digital DRM would be something with all the attributes of a book.
Re:When Apples Introduces DRM... (Score:3, Funny)
Reality Check (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe not if you're an idealist. The vast majority wants the content for the content, not because it does or doesn't work on Macs.
Do Americans Want Freedom or Bread and Circuses? (Score:5, Interesting)
"Do Americans care more about the freedoms for which hundreds of thousands of their forfather's died, or the Bread and Circuses Hollywood offers?"
In truth, the question will likely become more generic when this dreck is exported to the rest of the world:
"Will people care more about the bread and Circuses America's Hollywood offers them, or the freedoms they, their parents, and their grandparents have died trying to secure for them?"
Depressingly, the former will likely fall into the "Take away any liberties you like, but don't take away my Seinfeld!" here in the states. However, with hardware made in Taiwan and GNU/Linux displacing Windows in governments (and to some degree on the street) in most of the non-American world, the answer the rest of the world gives to the question will be very intersting, and I suspect a very rude surprise to the copyright cartels of New York and Hollywood, and those software and hardware purveyors that kowtow to them.
Re:Do Americans Want Freedom or Bread and Circuses (Score:3, Funny)
C'mon, the founding fathers should have thought their marketing plan through a little bit better. Instead of having you pay this big long term fee, they should have made it more a la carte. For example, give the base freedom of the right to breath away for free. Then every month you would get the chance to get an additional freedom by paying a small fee. People would pay extra for the right to speak, the right to pursue happiness, etc, etc. It's quite different than what most are used to, but remember they only pay for what they use and they can the stop the program at any time. And if they act during one of the infomercials, they can get the right to read the freedom EULA free, just for being a loyal customer. How great is that!
Re:Clinton couldn't have stopped the DMCA (Score:3, Informative)
There were alternatives in both House (Boucher) and Senate (Ashcroft) that would have outlawed circumvention only in cases of actual copyright infringement. I believe Boucher's bill may even have specified that the penalties for circumvention in that case would be proportional to the penalties for the type of infringement.
Valenti pronounced this unacceptable, sniffing in the press that only bills that outlawed circumvention in ALL cases would be "acceptable".
BTW, Gore introduced the bill to make SCMS copy protection mandatory on DAT recorders. He also made comments to the effect that the real solution was to change copyright law to make things easier for copy protection. Reading between the lines, it didn't sound like he had the public's rights in mind then, and once the DMCA came around, the meaning of those remarks became even more obvious.
Re:Do Americans Want Freedom or Bread and Circuses (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft and the copyright cartels have monopolies that prevent the people from having such a choice. Microsoft's monopoly may be ill-gotten, and perhaps a more lawful Justice Department, free from the stain of presidential bribes, might have brought it into check, but the copyright cartels are granted monopolies by government fiat, and sustained by a regime of copyright law designed expressly for that purpose.
The Founding Fathers didn't give a rat's ass about whether you can get a weekly free beer at a bar. Their freedom of speech was to ensure that political speech wouldn't be silenced.
The constitution does not limit freedom of speech to political speech. It is clearly written and intended to protect all speech. As for the founding father's "giving a rats ass" I suggest you take a remidial course in basic US history.
You demonstrate the achilles heel of the Libertarian philosophy, namely their inability to differentiate between individual freedom, which the constitution was designed and intended to protect, and corporate freedom to run roughshod over those same individuals, which the founding fathers were nearly unanimous in opposing and even fearing. That they could never have forseen the corporate fascism to which our once great democracy has degenerated, and the willful attempt of Microsoft and Hollywood (through Palladium and DRM, as well as other measures) to usurp governance responsibilities (such as policing and enforcing the law) from its rightful authorities, namely a democractically elected government of, by, and for the people, is hardly their fault, but implying that the would have endorsed such a thing is an insult both to them and to the intellegence of anyone reading your post.
Oh Well (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oh Well (Score:4, Funny)
Funny Ipod Icon. (Score:4, Funny)
Visit your local Mac friendly store and get a free copies of software! All by dragging it off the disk onto your firewire enabled Ipod!
Talk about user friendly! No wonder they only worry about getting $$$'s for hardware.
-S
if u can write, u can't buy book (Score:5, Funny)
Re:if u can write, u can't buy book (Score:3, Interesting)
Why type a book out when you can simply scan it to disk? Copyright laws have worked well for both consumers and publishers for a very long time.
As a mac user, who cares? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm sure there are plenty of "big picture" reasons why this is bad - no mac support for other stuff like encrypted CDs, etc - but I'm going to ignore those for now and continue to be narrow-minded about this, since it's Monday and you can't stop me. To me, this article is like saying "Divx not supported on macs" - it will be met with a resounding chorus of "so what?"
(No, not that Divx. The original one. Who was the jackass that thought it would be a good idea to name a codec after the Circuit City fiasco, anyway?)
Re:As a mac user, who cares? (Score:2)
Best DRM scheme to date (Score:5, Funny)
Don't steal the music.
That's it.
Re:Best DRM scheme to date (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Best DRM scheme to date (Score:3, Insightful)
Crimes fall where honest people are armed, because criminals fear for their lives. Gun control legislation only makes it safer for criminals to go about their business, as they can be confident their victims are unarmed.
If they ignore laws about rape, murder, or assualt, what makes you think they'll obey gun control laws any more than a stupid sticker?
Not news, just propaganda! (Score:5, Insightful)
Or, perhaps we could re-phrase their double-speak:
"We don't like Apple's attitude. Therefore, we're going to hose their customers... not by saying that Apple is wrong, but by saying that the Mac platform is poorly supported by the software industry! Heh, that'll learn them".
Again, the customers are in the middle.... between the computer industry, which has a disdain for controlling their customers and industry self-overregulation, and the "DRM" industry, whose only purpose is to control customers.
Since Apple was technically correct in their claims, the DRM folk could only counter by kicking Apple between the legs.
Let's read this article and it's topic as it should be - a power-play by the DRM industry, against Apple's ideal of fully supporting it's customer base.
Re:Not news, just propaganda! (Score:4, Insightful)
The funny thing is, this whole thing makes me want to run out and buy a Mac to support Apple. If Apple is not going to "support" DRM by forcing it on thier customers, then I'm just going to have to join that "unsupported" customer base.
Hmmmm (Score:4, Insightful)
Who knows, but I expect some people will try and figure out a way around it anyway. Look at how much effort has been put into cracking QuickTime in order to allow Linux users to watch .... adverts? Trailors and Apple ads basically. So I guess the answer is whether people want content or not isn't really related to the technology used.
Macs shmacs (Score:4, Interesting)
It just works - at least most of the time... (Score:4, Insightful)
...as long as Sony, AOL/Time Warner, etc will allow it to...
Well this fits with Apple's Switch [apple.com] campaign. After all when Ellen Feiss [ellenfeiss.net] is inspired (by whatever means) to combine her DVD of The Wizard of Oz with a particular Pink Floyd score she has on CD. She won't be pleased when her Mac beeps at her telling her that Sony won't let her rip the CD, and Time Warner won't let her copy their film...
After all if your whole marketing ploy is that people can use your computer to do what they think they should be able to do and do it easily; then you would want them to be able to exercize their "Fair Use" rights.
Don't know if it's been said yet... (Score:5, Interesting)
Apple is going to come under pressure from its own customers to include support for this stuff. If we want them to stay on the high road and not curb consumer's rights, we need to tell them, both in words and with our wallets when possible. The same goes for any company that takes a similar stance. It may behoove you to go to their feedback page and tell them what you think, before they become convinced that nobody cares.
Re:anyone know who to email? (Score:5, Informative)
He actually reads it. I've worked in Apple support, and I've seen him respond to a customer's e-mail a few times. He's the big gun, and he'll notice if his mailbox gets slashdotted with praising e-mails on this subject.
Re:anyone know who to email? (Score:4, Funny)
Ten thousand emails reading "ThanX d00d, fight the power! I love j00 guys cuz j00 don't care about profits or nothing, just the little guy! Information should be free!"
What they really mean... (Score:5, Insightful)
Put This in an Ad Now!!! (Score:5, Interesting)
This is what consumers want. Everytime business puts barriers to entertainment in front of consumers, they bypass it. People really, really like to be entertained and will go to some outlandish methods to obtain it -- Gladiators anyone?I like Apple's philosphy towards DRM, its a social issue not a technology issue. "Don't steal Music!" as it said on the sticker on my iPod.
This is no biggie for Apple. Just remember:
1) How long does it take to download a film than to drive to Blockbuster and get a DVD?
2) Would you rather watch a film on a 27" TV or a 17" Computer Monitor?
3) Apple has no DRM! You computer is free to read and write what you want! Its like Linux except it has a usable desktop environment and has great consumer apps...iMovie anyone?
Both parties must agree to keep it a secret. (Score:4, Insightful)
How to beat DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
Good IP thiefs will remain good IP thiefs indefinately.
Want to copy a DRM'd song? Wire the speaker-out to the line-in on another computer and record it as a Wav, then MP3 it. Want to copy a DRM'd video? Use a camcorder. Or better yet. Use one of those video cards that sends it to a VCR, DVD-R, or HI-8, and record the video output from the screen. Seriously, DRM will not work against pirates, and only serves to prevent legitimate users from using to their full potential.
And I spend months of my life prostituting myself working on this bunk..........
Tip of the iceberg (Score:3, Interesting)
Apple needs to do whatever it takes to "get 'em while they're young."
"DOS Computers manufactured by companies such as IBM, Compaq, Tandy, and millions of others are by far the most popular, with about 70 million machines in use worldwide. Macintosh fans, on the other hand, may note that cockroaches are far more numerous than humans, and that numbers alone do not denote a higher life form." - New York Times, November 26, 1991
So the Linux version oughtta be available........ (Score:3, Funny)
Another Mac user (Score:4, Funny)
Wait, I'm getting free bread from Apple?
Apple does have DRM... (Score:5, Informative)
It's Audible's [audible.com] digital rights management and hasn't been spoken of much.
Audible.com (Score:5, Insightful)
DRM can work for all concerned, in a way that doesn't violate anyone's rights and stil pays the artists. Why hasn't anyone else tried this?
Triv
Nothing to miss here. (Score:4, Interesting)
But really... DRM is something I'm glad it isn't on my Mac. Restrictions like that keep me *away* from Windows and steer my preference to MacOS X and Linux/*BSD.
But doesn't "Digital Rights Management" sound nice and happy? My guess is Joe average consumer hears that and go "Ooo, my rights are being protected online! I want that!" Anyway that's what popped into my mind when I saw that option in WMP, but I know better.
~Seth
Just the beginning (Score:4, Insightful)
Who cares? (Score:5, Interesting)
So the RIAA approves a few crippled download services and the MPAA approves a few crippled download services... so what? Its been done before... failures of Biblical proportions. Why didn't they report that?
In the real world, DVD's are open media (thanks to our friend who's paying for it with his freedom)... and what's going on in the world of DVD sales?
DVD sales are making them money hand over fist.. they can't buy enough trucks to take the money to the bank fast enough.
This story is bullshit because it doesn't note that 1/2 of the protection was taken off of a DVD last year in a underreported coup.. and what happend? Hary Potter.. which was both un-Macrovisioned AND was on the P2P nets long before the theatrical release became the biggest selling DVD of all time..
from the article..."[the iMac] also has a large contingent of early adopters, who likely would be interested in trying out technologies such as video on demand. "
That is not news... that is bullshit.
note to c|net... those iMac adopters can ALREADY watch Harry Potter, you NONCES!. They bought the open media format on DVD and are already watching it! Do you have to practice to be this stupid?
the real truth will be found out in the next 5 years.. who will proseper - open media or crippled formats? The trending up of DVD sales and the trending down of CD sales... which are being more and more crippled each day. Or the new cripple-ware services....
I'm putting my money on the open media standards....
What the article also doesn't do a good enough job of it pointing out WHY Final Cut Pro, TiBooks and linux renderfarms are the darling of Hollywood.. and all content creators....
The reason is.. they are not DRM-crippled.
Damnit... it should be against the law to call your site news.com when you are nothing but Microsoft and now, DRM shills... with no actual desire to report news.
Politics? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Politics? (Score:3, Interesting)
Apple business model (Score:4, Insightful)
WM and Real DRM works on a Mac (Score:5, Insightful)
So, whatever MovieLink might claim is their reason, they aren't technical. They probably don't want to do it for marketshare reasons, and are using Apple's DRM statements (which are really rather mild) as an excuse/flogging horse.
A couple points of technical followup (Score:3, Informative)
Windows Media for MacOS only supports WM DRM v1, which only supports the older WMV7 codec, not the WMV8 MovieLink is using. Presumably they're using DRM 7.1 (7.0 was cracked). However, MovieLink will run on Windows 98, which doesn't support the Secure Audio Path, so there isn't a huge technical DRM difference here.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/w
Real's subscription service is available for MacOS X with the full functionality of Windows, so their DRM is presumably feature complete cross-platform. And I believe for Linux as well, but I haven't checked.
One of many DRM issues with Macs... (Score:5, Insightful)
So, of course, it wasn't mp3, or mpeg, or realaudio. It was the Liquid Audio format...
I downloaded and installed the player, which runs under classic a-ok, until you actually try to play the files. Upon searching, it is explicitly incompatible with MacOS X, as are the RealPlayer plugins to listen to the files as well. There are no alternative players. In reading a bit more, I also found that Microsoft bought all of the intellectual property rights from the creators of Liquid Audio in September, so now the task of writing a player for MacOS X falls into their lap...
Fair use rights...? What are those? I paid money for this song, and can't listen to it. In speaking to cdnow's customer service, they informed me that I needed to get the proper player for my operating system. This was in reply to my saying "There isn't a player for OS X."
So, Mac users, linux users, BSD users, and the rest of the gang unfortunately get it up the poop chute when it comes to DRM-based media. I paid for a song and couldn't listen to it, as the DRM won't let me! I'd be more bitter about my lack-of-refund if I didn't get the song 10 minutes afterwards from my local friendly P2P clients... at a much higher bitrate, too... If getting things LEGALLY were as easy as getting them pirated, maybe people wouldn't be stealing so much music, eh?
Damned if they do, damned if they don't... (Score:3, Insightful)
If the customer has to go against his ethical code to own some movie he could just buy at the corner store anyway, is it really worth it? I've always bought all my media stuff in 'real' versions, and I'll keep doing that. Downloading movies ain't really practical on a 33.6 faxmodem... And watching them on a computer screen, even the superfine TiBook LCD, just can't beat my Sony bigscreen, and pisses off the missus to no end.
This is merely another example of Windows-based coders ignoring the rest of the world, just with a politically-correct excuse this time. I'm still waiting for Counterstrike on the Mac, btw. Not gonna happen? Fine. I don't plonk, I boycott. Me and my friends present our 'boycott list' to each other every week and then try to kill sales. Good fun, and plotting goes great with chicken wings and beer.
And when Movielink fails in 6 months, as it probably will, the studios will inevitably find a scapegoat besides their own stubborn stupidity. Probably piracy, hackers, or muslim terrorists, despite the fact that they've been refusing customers and have a bad dotcom-like business plan. Stupid.
And this article tries very hard to make the Macs' nearly complete lack of DRM sound like *A Very Bad Thing*. AS IF. Nice spin, Big Brother. Freedom is Slavery. Good is evil, evil is good. Trust Big Brother.
BlackBolt
Mozilla users also screwed (Score:3, Interesting)
This is why I will buy a Mac (Score:4, Insightful)
Is apple dominating or being dominated? (Score:4, Insightful)
They have it backwards. Apple is dominating the digital media market when "[m]any--if not most--production studios use Apple's top-rated QuickTime Final Cut Pro content-creation and video-editing tools." Apple is being dominated when they add Digital Restriction Mechanisms to their software and hardware, to tempt movie moguls into providing video services for their customers.
It's important to remember that DRM does not enable digital content to be delivered online. DRM hog-ties consumers which makes them an attractive and helpless market for digital content. Big difference.
In other OTHER news... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure they have several reasons for doing this (most importantly because they don't want to hear from people who have slow download speeds complaining) but it is discrimination regardless...
Apple is right (Score:3, Informative)
Apple's doing the right thing. If everyone jumps on the wrong technology for protecting movies, it will become entrenched no matter how bad it is. That will inhibit better technologies from taking hold. It's a classic scenario in the computer world.
On the other hand, Apple is taking a chance by not getting involved now, but I think their customers will respect them for it and appreciate it since Apple's image, at least, is more about freedom than lockin.
Re:Apple ALREADY uses DRM? (Score:3, Informative)
You need an Audible account to purchase the tracks, but once they're on your iPod, there's really nothing stopping you from sucking it off with any one of a dozen utilities.