If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Ars Technica)   Ten years ago, 4 techies gave 100% accurate predictions of how piracy would adapt to DRM. FARK: They were Microsoft engineers developing the Trusted Computing Platform   (arstechnica.com) divider line 75
    More: Interesting, DRM, computing platform, Microsoft, copy protection, trusted computing, peer-to-peer networks, information technology, encryption key  
•       •       •

5264 clicks; posted to Geek » on 01 Dec 2012 at 9:57 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



75 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-12-01 05:06:10 AM  
I think content owners share a large percentage of the blame.

You can't really buy a book or CD anymore, you "license" it, complete with a 50 page agreement full of fine print limiting what you can do with that content. Buy a book, and after I am finished with it I can lend it to my friends. But buy a digital file for my Kindle, and after I finish it, I am not supposed to do anything with it except store it in my own personal cloud. And in many cases the kindle book costs the same as the hard copy, or close too it, and I get to provide the infrastructure to read it.

Same with video and music. I am sure that somewhere in the fine print for that CD I just "licensed", it is not legal for me to rip it and play it on my mp3 player.

I don't believe that anyone has the right to buy one copy of anyone's copyrighted content and share it with the whole world. That is just stealing. But when content providers turn me into a pirate for just using content that I already paid for in more convenient manner, it is their own fault when the "darknet" mentality takes over.
 
2012-12-01 08:52:26 AM  
Honest to god, if I like something, I buy it. But then I download via BitTorrent anyway so I can use it.
 
2012-12-01 09:07:47 AM  

SecretAgentWoman: But then I download via BitTorrent anyway so I can use it.


I tend to do the same, especially because for certain things, Bittorrent is significantly faster than ripping the content off the DVD I own (and even if it's not faster, it's less effort for both me and my CPU).
 
2012-12-01 10:04:02 AM  
The internet is designed to route around damage.
 
2012-12-01 10:12:18 AM  
FTFA: They feared that Microsoft would use the technology to exert control over which software could be executed on Windows PCs, freezing out open source operating systems and reducing users' freedom to run the software of their choice.

HAI GUIZE
cdn.ndtv.com

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!

the funny thing is that Apple's success with the iOS devices primed the consumer to expect exactly that. fark Apple.
 
2012-12-01 10:23:11 AM  
Option A: Purchase software/movie/song/game/etc and deal with unskippable portions, locked content, DRM, etc.

Option B: Pirate the software for free and forego any DRM or related headaches and have an astronomically low chance of being caught/fined/imprisoned.

Don't be surprised when people go for Option B. I love Game of Thrones but HBO doesn't make the show available for purchase online or streaming, so I pirate it. If they made it easily accessible on something like Amazon video then I would gladly pay for it.
 
2012-12-01 10:28:08 AM  

rocky_howard: the funny thing is that Apple's success with the iOS devices primed the consumer to expect exactly that. fark Apple


It's a trade-off. Apple positions its mobile devices as consumer electronics. Complaining that they won't let you run the software of your choice is like complaining that your microwave doesn't run Linux. There's certainly a place in the market for general purpose devices, and there always will be. But for most users, most of the time, Apple's model works very well.

Or, to put it another way, most people can't be arsed to install a non-IE web-browser. Now you expect them to run alternative web browsers and other apps on their phone?
 
2012-12-01 10:35:38 AM  

DoomPaul: I love Game of Thrones but HBO doesn't make the show available for purchase online or streaming, so I pirate it. If they made it easily accessible on something like Amazon video then I would gladly pay for it.


I just checked Xfinity.

If you're a Comcast subscriber, the first two seasons of Game of Thrones is available for streaming. Plus there are about 10,000 clips and features about Game of Thrones that are also available. And, you can always watch the show on OnDemand.
 
2012-12-01 10:37:55 AM  

t3knomanser: Or, to put it another way, most people can't be arsed to install a non-IE web-browser. Now you expect them to run alternative web browsers and other apps on their phone?


That's not really the same. We might laugh at people who run IE, but they do have the option to install Chrome.

What Apple have done is take a computer and deliberately cripple it. They didn't even take the Android route of allowing sideloading with a "here be dragons" button.
 
2012-12-01 10:37:57 AM  

t3knomanser: rocky_howard: the funny thing is that Apple's success with the iOS devices primed the consumer to expect exactly that. fark Apple

It's a trade-off. Apple positions its mobile devices as consumer electronics. Complaining that they won't let you run the software of your choice is like complaining that your microwave doesn't run Linux. There's certainly a place in the market for general purpose devices, and there always will be. But for most users, most of the time, Apple's model works very well.

Or, to put it another way, most people can't be arsed to install a non-IE web-browser. Now you expect them to run alternative web browsers and other apps on their phone?


Sadly, I'm in need of a new smartphone now that my blackberry is dying and the iPhone 5 sounds like the best option out there.

I don't entirely like it, but I like it more than other platforms, from software to hardware. I'd love for it to have widgets though, that's something Android does pretty nicely.

Now, the big reason why I'm not decided yet? iTunes. I H.A.T.E. dealing with that program and the fact that I can't drag n drop stuff in and out of the phone is disgusting. So I may put up with Android's bullshiat if I decide iTunes isn't worth the trouble.

Any word about the Nokia Lumia 920? Windows Phone intrigues me and it looks better than Android for me. But what about support and all that stuff?
 
2012-12-01 10:38:17 AM  

t3knomanser: rocky_howard: the funny thing is that Apple's success with the iOS devices primed the consumer to expect exactly that. fark Apple

It's a trade-off. Apple positions its mobile devices as consumer electronics. Complaining that they won't let you run the software of your choice is like complaining that your microwave doesn't run Linux. There's certainly a place in the market for general purpose devices, and there always will be. But for most users, most of the time, Apple's model works very well.

Or, to put it another way, most people can't be arsed to install a non-IE web-browser. Now you expect them to run alternative web browsers and other apps on their phone?


The problem with this scenario is that Apple (maybe not then, but definitely now) knows that people will go out of their ways to shoehorn their "consumer electronics" into business environments and they sell it as a "multi-use solution" for different companies to resell to customers as business-class products.

However, I give it up to Apple. They basically are selling 4 different sizes of the same thing (two that can make telephone calls) and are making that cheddar cheezy.
 
2012-12-01 10:38:23 AM  
I used to be a huge (by my standards) pirate. Games, movies, music...now, I never do...and here is why:

I see that the industry is changing for the positive...well, at least beginning to:
Music - I gladly pay $30something a year for Pandora
Movies - I can stream a newly released, full HD movie to one of my many devices, VUDU, Zune, Netflix, etc
Games - Steam

I think that there are some flaws with the current system, love how a kindle book costs just as much, sometimes more than a physical copy...the fact that I cannot lend it out is just retarded. The idea that I do not own the content I paid for is somewhat scary, but I think as the dinosaurs of the entertainment industry retire and die off, we will see more and more subscription based access. Rather than pay for 4 MGM movies at $25 a pop per BluRay, I would have access to their entire catalog to stream from. Hunger Games was the last BluRay I purchased, and Harry Potter before that. I rarely buy physical media now. I really think that unlimited based subscription is the way to go.
 
2012-12-01 10:39:31 AM  

eraser8: DoomPaul: I love Game of Thrones but HBO doesn't make the show available for purchase online or streaming, so I pirate it. If they made it easily accessible on something like Amazon video then I would gladly pay for it.

I just checked Xfinity.

If you're a Comcast subscriber, the first two seasons of Game of Thrones is available for streaming. Plus there are about 10,000 clips and features about Game of Thrones that are also available. And, you can always watch the show on OnDemand.


Also, I just checked HBO. Game of Thrones IS available for streaming.
 
2012-12-01 10:39:48 AM  
The government needs to wise up and crack down on these criminals that are downloading and sharing pirated music, movies, books, etc (i.e. stealing). The economy is shiat, and creative media is about the only potentially viable U.S. export anymore these days -- Yes, those movies and songs you love to pretend you're too cool to enjoy, the world loves them and pays a lot (steals a lot, too) to see and hear them. If we threw people in jail and stopped this rampant theft, think of all the money that'd be injected into the economy. It's just common sense -- pay for what you use, then the media companies can hire more people and spend more money, which means more jobs with more people who can pay for songs and movies. It's a positive feedback loop of win compared to the negative feedback loop of economic fail that we all seem to hold in high regard these days.
 
2012-12-01 10:41:10 AM  

t3knomanser: rocky_howard: the funny thing is that Apple's success with the iOS devices primed the consumer to expect exactly that. fark Apple

It's a trade-off. Apple positions its mobile devices as consumer electronics. Complaining that they won't let you run the software of your choice is like complaining that your microwave doesn't run Linux. There's certainly a place in the market for general purpose devices, and there always will be. But for most users, most of the time, Apple's model works very well.

Or, to put it another way, most people can't be arsed to install a non-IE web-browser. Now you expect them to run alternative web browsers and other apps on their phone?



And yet you can still root your iPhone and run alternative software on it. My grandma might not root her iPhone, but tons of people do. The pirates/hackers will always win the battle in the end so long as content and gadget providers continue to struggle with them directly with DRM rather than innovating and trying to create truly enticing legal options.

Yes, the music and movie industries may have to accept a lower profit margin per unit delivered in the end (though it's possible they may be able to make some up on volume), they may even need to become smaller industries. It's either arrogance, desperation or delusion if they think their industry should be exempt from the same changes that technological advancement has imposed on all sorts of other industries. The longer they deny reality the more likely the market will be pulled out from under them entirely.
 
2012-12-01 10:43:14 AM  
the sooner drm dies, the better off content will be.
 
2012-12-01 10:49:22 AM  

mr_a: I think content owners share a large percentage of the blame.


Yeah... no.

You always bought a license. You just didn't know what you were buying. You bought a book. Inherent in that purchase is a limited use license. You bought a CD, you bought a limited use license. That 'All Rights Reserved' stuff isn't printed on all kinds of shiat for fun. It was there to remind you and so many others that 'yes this is your copy, but all those other rights the creator(s) has are still very much theirs (like the right for distribution and reproduction) and don't you farking forget it.

That the medium is now just 1's and 0's doesn't somehow negate the existence of that license. You didn't buy that plastic and aluminum disc or the block of paper and ink. You bought the limited use license. Kvetching about how you could loan a book or disc to a friend... well, once you lend it, you don't farking HAVE it anymore, do you dumbass? The license nicely moved with the content. That the medium has changed doesn't somehow invalidate or remove that limited use license expectation.

Now, to criticize the creators on THEIR stupidity... I could give a shiat about the people who download a copy of a song. There's no point in going after them, the RIAA and others have made that mistake as a form of deterrence. It was a waste of time and money.

It's the people who are hosting, who are distributing, who are seeding the content... those are the ones who need to be smacked down. Pimply guy number 108351? Who cares. The guys running Pirate Bay? Maintaining those servers? Their ISPs? Those are the ones to go after.
 
2012-12-01 10:51:19 AM  

eraser8: DoomPaul: I love Game of Thrones but HBO doesn't make the show available for purchase online or streaming, so I pirate it. If they made it easily accessible on something like Amazon video then I would gladly pay for it.

I just checked Xfinity.

If you're a Comcast subscriber, the first two seasons of Game of Thrones is available for streaming. Plus there are about 10,000 clips and features about Game of Thrones that are also available. And, you can always watch the show on OnDemand.


Thanks, but I use a different cable company and don't subscribe to HBO. I just want to be able to purchase the shows for streaming when they air. Right now I just pirate them the day after or watch a livestream then buy the DVD set when it's released.
 
2012-12-01 10:55:37 AM  

Cinaed: It's the people who are hosting, who are distributing, who are seeding the content


In the case of bittorrent, Pimply guy number 108351 IS the person who's doing all those things.

TPB just keeps a database on how to findpPimply guy number 108351.

/full of fail
 
2012-12-01 11:10:35 AM  

MrHappyRotter: The government needs to wise up and crack down on these criminals that are downloading and sharing pirated music, movies, books, etc (i.e. stealing). The economy is shiat, and creative media is about the only potentially viable U.S. export anymore these days -- Yes, those movies and songs you love to pretend you're too cool to enjoy, the world loves them and pays a lot (steals a lot, too) to see and hear them. If we threw people in jail and stopped this rampant theft, think of all the money that'd be injected into the economy. It's just common sense -- pay for what you use, then the media companies can hire more people and spend more money, which means more jobs with more people who can pay for songs and movies. It's a positive feedback loop of win compared to the negative feedback loop of economic fail that we all seem to hold in high regard these days.


6.5/10

Either too dumb, or not dumb enough. I can't decide.
 
2012-12-01 11:20:48 AM  
Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy
You're generous. I was thinking more like 4/10.

I did enjoy his satirical economic argument but the way he inexpertly pushed the "stealing" button was, for better or worse, completely clownish.
 
2012-12-01 11:21:07 AM  

farkeruk: We might laugh at people who run IE, but they do have the option to install Chrome.


But they aren't going to. So who cares if the feature is removed? Code signing brings other benefits. It's a trade-off, certainly, but it's not inherently bad.

The Billdozer: The problem with this scenario is that Apple (maybe not then, but definitely now) knows that people will go out of their ways to shoehorn their "consumer electronics" into business environments and they sell it as a "multi-use solution" for different companies to resell to customers as business-class products.


Of course, Apple also put together a way for corporations to build their own extensions to Apple's walled garden. My company could develop iPhone applications and deploy them through our own app repository to our company's phones. We don't, largely because our mobile ecosystem is far to heterogeneous, but we could.

mongbiohazard: And yet you can still root your iPhone and run alternative software on it.


Let's not pretend that's a real solution. Yes, you can crack it, and then you get to play with the death-spiral of trying to keep patches up to date and restoring from backups constantly and the next OS release potentially bricking your phone, etc. etc. etc.
 
2012-12-01 11:22:59 AM  

farkeruk: What Apple have done is take a computer and deliberately cripple it. They didn't even take the Android route of allowing sideloading with a "here be dragons" button.


Apple deliberately "crippled" a computer format by greatly expanding the formats capability and function and selling it to a larger audience than ever before.
 
2012-12-01 11:23:32 AM  

DoomPaul: Option A: Purchase software/movie/song/game/etc and deal with unskippable portions, locked content, DRM, etc.

Option B: Pirate the software for free and forego any DRM or related headaches and have an astronomically low chance of being caught/fined/imprisoned.

Don't be surprised when people go for Option B. I love Game of Thrones but HBO doesn't make the show available for purchase online or streaming, so I pirate it. If they made it easily accessible on something like Amazon video then I would gladly pay for it.


I may be wrong, but the last paragraph of TFA says the exact opposite.
 
2012-12-01 11:39:45 AM  

gingerjet: Apple deliberately "crippled" a computer format by greatly expanding the formats capability and function and selling it to a larger audience than ever before.


I'm not sure what you're talking about but let me explain things:-

1. By default, the BSD UNIX operating system allows people to run their own programs.
2. iOS is based on the BSD UNIX operating system
3. The iOS operating system does not allow people to run their own programs
4. Therefore, Apple deliberately crippled it.
 
2012-12-01 11:52:37 AM  

MrHappyRotter: The government needs to wise up and crack down on these criminals that are downloading and sharing pirated music, movies, books, etc (i.e. stealing). The economy is shiat, and creative media is about the only potentially viable U.S. export anymore these days -- Yes, those movies and songs you love to pretend you're too cool to enjoy, the world loves them and pays a lot (steals a lot, too) to see and hear them. If we threw people in jail and stopped this rampant theft, think of all the money that'd be injected into the economy. It's just common sense -- pay for what you use, then the media companies can hire more people and spend more money, which means more jobs with more people who can pay for songs and movies. It's a positive feedback loop of win compared to the negative feedback loop of economic fail that we all seem to hold in high regard these days.


You've got to build into it. Next time, don't lead with the punchline.
 
2012-12-01 11:52:47 AM  

t3knomanser: But they aren't going to. So who cares if the feature is removed? Code signing brings other benefits. It's a trade-off, certainly, but it's not inherently bad.


The problem with all closed or protected systems is always that you don't know what's going to happen tomorrow. Take the iPad - if you own a v1 or v2, you are vulnerable to attack in future because you're not getting any OS updates. Did anyone realise they were only going to get 2 years of updates when they bought it?

If that were a PC, you'd at least have the option of buying a new OS, or installing Linux. With an iPad, you either risk some code exploiting a known buffer overflow, or throw it in the bin.
 
2012-12-01 12:00:18 PM  

MrHappyRotter: The economy is shiat, and creative media is about the only potentially viable U.S. export anymore these days


Be honest - do you have a passport? In Indonesia, I saw video rental stores literally filled wall to wall with pirated movies. In a Taiwanese 3C (like a Best Buy), I was told they didn't carry PSP games because I could just go home and download it on my computer. And in the Middle East, seeing a non-pirated movie is about as common as a Jew and a Muslim sitting down for tea.
 
2012-12-01 12:02:57 PM  

Flab: DoomPaul: Option A: Purchase software/movie/song/game/etc and deal with unskippable portions, locked content, DRM, etc.

Option B: Pirate the software for free and forego any DRM or related headaches and have an astronomically low chance of being caught/fined/imprisoned.

Don't be surprised when people go for Option B. I love Game of Thrones but HBO doesn't make the show available for purchase online or streaming, so I pirate it. If they made it easily accessible on something like Amazon video then I would gladly pay for it.

I may be wrong, but the last paragraph of TFA says the exact opposite.


And that's why I don't buy the whole "people wouldn't pirate if it was available cheaply" argument. There is no process for acquiring digital content that will ever be easier or cheaper than torrenting. Sure, some people will pay legally, but then you risk viewers shifting from the current model, which makes good money, to the newer model, which would make far less. That's exactly what happened with the music industry. HBO makes way more money from people shelling out $18/month than they could if they made their shows available to download immediately.
 
2012-12-01 12:05:21 PM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: And in the Middle East, seeing a non-pirated movie is about as common as a Jew and a Muslim sitting down for tea a BLT.


FTFY
 
2012-12-01 12:09:50 PM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: MrHappyRotter: The economy is shiat, and creative media is about the only potentially viable U.S. export anymore these days

Be honest - do you have a passport? In Indonesia, I saw video rental stores literally filled wall to wall with pirated movies. In a Taiwanese 3C (like a Best Buy), I was told they didn't carry PSP games because I could just go home and download it on my computer. And in the Middle East, seeing a non-pirated movie is about as common as a Jew and a Muslim sitting down for tea.


As much as I hate to argue this, regional pricing might fix that? Or perhaps lowering prices across the board. Digital distribution reduces marginal costs by a ridiculous amount. Go the steam method. Reduce your price to a point where people will try it for shiats and giggles. 2 dollars for a movie and my standards drop.
 
2012-12-01 12:11:03 PM  

mr_a: Buy a book, and after I am finished with it I can lend it to my friends. But buy a digital file for my Kindle, and after I finish it, I am not supposed to do anything with it except store it in my own personal cloud.


Lending Kindle Books
 
2012-12-01 12:12:19 PM  

farkeruk: Take the iPad - if you own a v1 or v2, you are vulnerable to attack in future because you're not getting any OS updates


This is also true of my thermostat. The company has ceased releasing new software for it, and yes, it is Internet connected. This is the behavior of consumer electronics. My argument is that the iPad has more in common with a thermostat than a PC, and that comparing it to a PC is a bad comparison. It exists inside of a different problemspace.

Also, I tend to replace my laptop every 3-4 years anyway, so seeing other devices on a similar upgrade schedule isn't exactly the worst thing I've ever seen. Yes, it's wasteful, but welcome to America. I give my old stuff away to other folks, it's not like it goes into the trashbin.
 
2012-12-01 12:12:33 PM  

mr_a: You can't really buy a book or CD anymore, you "license" it,


You most definitely can buy a book.

Cinaed: You always bought a license. You just didn't know what you were buying. You bought a book. Inherent in that purchase is a limited use license. You bought a CD, you bought a limited use license. [...]
That the medium is now just 1's and 0's doesn't somehow negate the existence of that license. You didn't buy that plastic and aluminum disc or the block of paper and ink. You bought the limited use license.


A big difference between books and digital media is that you owned the physical copy of the book. You could sell it, share it, give it away or donate it to a charity bookstore.

With digital media you are either prohibited from doing those things (transfer of ownership) or very limited in how you can do them at the discretion of the copyright holder (lending/sharing). You aren't really buying a product, you're leasing it.
 
2012-12-01 12:15:17 PM  

Kinek: As much as I hate to argue this, regional pricing might fix that? Or perhaps lowering prices across the board. Digital distribution reduces marginal costs by a ridiculous amount. Go the steam method. Reduce your price to a point where people will try it for shiats and giggles. 2 dollars for a movie and my standards drop.


The argument used to be that piracy of personal computer video games used to be that computer gamers were whiny, elitist, and entitled consumers who demanded absolute satisfaction and perfection in their products and looked for excuses to pirate stuff. Now, if you look at the Android market, a platform bundled with one of the most accessible consumer devices out there, a market where the price point has hit a nearly unsustainable floor, piracy remains awful. There is going to be a percentage of people who do not buy your product under any circumstances, and it's simply better to get your brand out there than figuring out how to make these people pay for it. And the more DRM schemes out there, the more marketplaces that require you to disclose all your personal information, the more and more people who are going to turn to the piracy option.
 
2012-12-01 12:16:47 PM  

Honest Bender: mr_a: Buy a book, and after I am finished with it I can lend it to my friends. But buy a digital file for my Kindle, and after I finish it, I am not supposed to do anything with it except store it in my own personal cloud.

Lending Kindle Books


From the Link:

Kindle books can be loaned to another reader for a period of 14 days. The borrower does not need to own a Kindle -- Kindle books can also be read using our free Kindle reading applications for PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone, BlackBerry, and Android devices. Not all books are lendable -- it is up to the publisher or rights holder to determine which titles are eligible for lending. The lender will not be able to read the book during the loan period. Books can only be loaned once, and subscription content is not currently available for lending.

A hell of a lot more restrictive than what you can do with a physical copy that you own.
 
2012-12-01 12:21:01 PM  

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: A hell of a lot more restrictive than what you can do with a physical copy that you own.


This is one of the reasons I pirate more than I buy for my kindle. That, and I know one day I won't be using a kindle, and I don't want to have hundreds of dollars of books with DRM tied to an Amazon account. I love my Kindle, but damn do e-books need to catch up with the times.
 
2012-12-01 12:21:59 PM  

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: Honest Bender: mr_a: Buy a book, and after I am finished with it I can lend it to my friends. But buy a digital file for my Kindle, and after I finish it, I am not supposed to do anything with it except store it in my own personal cloud.

Lending Kindle Books

From the Link:

Kindle books can be loaned to another reader for a period of 14 days. The borrower does not need to own a Kindle -- Kindle books can also be read using our free Kindle reading applications for PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone, BlackBerry, and Android devices. Not all books are lendable -- it is up to the publisher or rights holder to determine which titles are eligible for lending. The lender will not be able to read the book during the loan period. Books can only be loaned once, and subscription content is not currently available for lending.

A hell of a lot more restrictive than what you can do with a physical copy that you own.


And that only applies to some Kindle books. If you go to the Kindle lending page on the Amazon site, only certain books (less than half of the titles I own) are even eligible.
 
2012-12-01 12:29:29 PM  

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: A hell of a lot more restrictive than what you can do with a physical copy that you own.


*shrug* Pros and cons, dude. Truth time: In my almost 30 years of life, I've never once loaned a book. It's just never come up. And, TBH, if I were going to lend someone a kindle book, I'd just pull the file off my kindle (or my backup of ebooks) and email it to them via Calibre. Now they can borrow it forever.
 
2012-12-01 12:31:11 PM  

Honest Bender: *shrug* Pros and cons, dude. Truth time: In my almost 30 years of life, I've never once loaned a book. It's just never come up. And, TBH, if I were going to lend someone a kindle book, I'd just pull the file off my kindle (or my backup of ebooks) and email it to them via Calibre. Now they can borrow it forever.


Kindle books use DRM to prevent that. Also, seriously, you've never loaned a book?
 
2012-12-01 12:51:11 PM  

t3knomanser: My argument is that the iPad has more in common with a thermostat than a PC


Wow, you are funny.
 
2012-12-01 12:53:55 PM  
Put those guys in charge of Microsoft.
 
2012-12-01 01:09:13 PM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Kindle books use DRM to prevent that. Also, seriously, you've never loaned a book?


DRM can be stripped out so easily it's laughable. So easy that I didn't feel it was necessary to even mention it in my previous post. And no, I've never had occasion to lend a book.
 
2012-12-01 01:17:58 PM  

farkeruk: t3knomanser: Or, to put it another way, most people can't be arsed to install a non-IE web-browser. Now you expect them to run alternative web browsers and other apps on their phone?

That's not really the same. We might laugh at people who run IE, but they do have the option to install Chrome.

What Apple have done is take a computer and deliberately cripple it. They didn't even take the Android route of allowing sideloading with a "here be dragons" button.


On the flip side, people that develop for iOS actually get paid for their work. The horror!
 
2012-12-01 01:34:26 PM  

Honest Bender: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Kindle books use DRM to prevent that. Also, seriously, you've never loaned a book?

DRM can be stripped out so easily it's laughable. So easy that I didn't feel it was necessary to even mention it in my previous post. And no, I've never had occasion to lend a book.


I have lent a book but it was maybe twenty years ago. Do people still do that?
 
2012-12-01 01:39:59 PM  

Endive Wombat: I used to be a huge (by my standards) pirate. Games, movies, music...now, I never do...and here is why:

I see that the industry is changing for the positive...well, at least beginning to:
Music - I gladly pay $30something a year for Pandora
Movies - I can stream a newly released, full HD movie to one of my many devices, VUDU, Zune, Netflix, etc
Games - Steam

I think that there are some flaws with the current system, love how a kindle book costs just as much, sometimes more than a physical copy...the fact that I cannot lend it out is just retarded. The idea that I do not own the content I paid for is somewhat scary, but I think as the dinosaurs of the entertainment industry retire and die off, we will see more and more subscription based access. Rather than pay for 4 MGM movies at $25 a pop per BluRay, I would have access to their entire catalog to stream from. Hunger Games was the last BluRay I purchased, and Harry Potter before that. I rarely buy physical media now. I really think that unlimited based subscription is the way to go.


Same here. I, uh, used to acquire things through "questionable" means, but that was because it was new and exciting. Now that the novelty has worn off, everything I have I obtain through legal channels. That, and I want to set a good example for my children.
 
2012-12-01 02:36:43 PM  

Cinaed: You always bought a license.


Buuuuuuuullll shiiiiiat.

I'm sorry, if you want to take up the mantle of defending the intellectually bankrupt concept of IP the industries are currently pushing go right ahead, but don't try to re-write history. A book used to be a farking book. You owned the book, and you did what you wanted with it. It was also completely legal to record music from radio broadcasts and listen to it, as long as you didn't sell your copy. Now that high quality copies can be made cheaply by the consumer, all of a sudden the industry needs to own rights it never needed before? Fark that.

There's always been money for musicians in live performances, and there always will be. It's easier and cheaper than ever for a musician to record, cut, and distribute an album. There's no need to allow fat rich assholes to make hundreds of millions of dollars off of other people's talent when they no longer add anything of value. Let the recording execs find some other coattails to ride for a while.

gingerjet: Apple deliberately "crippled" a computer format by greatly expanding the formats capability and function and selling it to a larger audience than ever before.


Pffffft. Apple hasn't had a groundbreaking idea since 1984, and even that one was ridiculously overpriced. The only remarkable thing they're really selling these days is packaging and lifestyle. They're just exceedingly good at those two things.
 
2012-12-01 02:36:56 PM  
Nice article with the exception that "Darknet" was coined by William Gibson.
 
2012-12-01 02:42:28 PM  
The problem with Trusted Computing. Old now but still valid.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgFbqSYdNK4
 
2012-12-01 02:46:19 PM  

DoomPaul: I love Game of Thrones but HBO doesn't make the show available for purchase online or streaming, so I pirate it. If they made it easily accessible on something like Amazon video then I would gladly pay for it.


Here's a link then. Go buy it.

/Granted they only have made season one available at this point, but it IS there.
 
2012-12-01 02:46:42 PM  
t3knomanser: It's a trade-off. Apple positions its mobile devices as consumer electronics. Complaining that they won't let you run the software of your choice is like complaining that your microwave doesn't run Linux.

If the hardware is capable, but they've intentionally put in blockades, then that's on Apple.

A microwave just lacks the capability, so nobody expects it.

// you can only install OSX on "apple branded" hardware, and there are protections in place to make it difficult for you to install it elsewhere. BUT, you can use bootcamp on your Mac to install/run windows just fine. WTF kind of hypocrisy is that.
 
2012-12-01 02:49:21 PM  
Z-clipped : There's always been money for musicians in live performances, and there always will be.

You can't pirate a live experience, sure you can record video, but it's not the same as being there.

sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net 

//Saw the Trans-Siberian Orchestra live last night.
 
2012-12-01 03:10:28 PM  
Speaking of, Newzbin2 just went down this week.

As a user of that which must not be named, I'd appreciate email-in-profile ideas on the best replacement.
 
2012-12-01 03:13:56 PM  

lordargent: t3knomanser: It's a trade-off. Apple positions its mobile devices as consumer electronics. Complaining that they won't let you run the software of your choice is like complaining that your microwave doesn't run Linux.

If the hardware is capable, but they've intentionally put in blockades, then that's on Apple.

A microwave just lacks the capability, so nobody expects it.

// you can only install OSX on "apple branded" hardware, and there are protections in place to make it difficult for you to install it elsewhere. BUT, you can use bootcamp on your Mac to install/run windows just fine. WTF kind of hypocrisy is that.


Because the windows license allows it to be installed on any computer and the Mac OS one doesn't? Is this a trick question? How is that hypocrisy?
 
2012-12-01 03:21:00 PM  

lordargent: You can't pirate a live experience, sure you can record video, but it's not the same as being there.


Damn straight.
Looks like it was a great show.
 
2012-12-01 03:32:26 PM  

lordargent: If the hardware is capable, but they've intentionally put in blockades, then that's on Apple.


The OS won't run software that isn't signed with a certain key. This is a good thing for certain cases of "good". It makes the device remarkably virus proof, especially since the primary vector is trojan software and similar things. It simplifies the architecture of the OS, since the process model is simpler. And so on.

It's a decision, and it carries trade-offs and limitations as a result. But it's not an inherently terrible decision.

lordargent: A microwave just lacks the capability, so nobody expects it.


Bullshiat. Have you gone shopping for a microwave recently? My microwave has a touch-screen and computer-controls and the like. My thermostat is Internet connected. My TV has walled-garden applications.
 
2012-12-01 03:36:24 PM  

t3knomanser: My thermostat is Internet connected.


Then it's only a matter of time before someone writes a Linux distro for it.
As they say, boo
 
2012-12-01 03:37:40 PM  
Oops. That should have been "book it, done".
 
2012-12-01 03:39:00 PM  

Z-clipped: Pffffft. Apple hasn't had a groundbreaking idea since 1984, and even that one was ridiculously overpriced. The only remarkable thing they're really selling these days is packaging and lifestyle. They're just exceedingly good at those two things.


You're delusional with Apple hate if you can't admit that Apple hasn't utterly redefined the smartphone and tablet categories and made them hugely popular with consumers. Their devices aren't perfect, and the iPhone especially has gotten incredibly stale in their OS and hardware updates, but you have to admit that they had a huge influence. Without the iPhone, I doubt that Nokia would have gone from this:

go4download.com

to this:

regmedia.co.uk

In the span of five years. Yes, some of the basic ideas behind the iPhone predated it, but that it like saying that because a P-51 had wings a F-22 is a huge rip off of the ideas behind it. Most real progress is about taking existing ideas and refining and improving them, which Apple has done a very good job with.
 
2012-12-01 03:45:25 PM  
Poorlytoldjoke: Because the windows license allows it to be installed on any computer and the Mac OS one doesn't? Is this a trick question? How is that hypocrisy?

Forget about what the windows license agreement, this is all about the apple license agreement.

Hypocrisy is about "do as I say, not as I do.

Apple says "don't install our OS on other peoples hardware" while also saying "feel free to install a competitors OS on our hardware".
 
2012-12-01 03:48:16 PM  
t3knomanser: Bullshiat. Have you gone shopping for a microwave recently?

I have, but I didn't look too closely. I assume that a bunch of them have been computerized now (which means some of them should be able to run linux).

But your stereotypical old school microwave doesn't, and you wouldn't expect it to.

// I saw hello kitty trapped in a microwave
sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2012-12-01 03:52:31 PM  
t3knomanser: The OS won't run software that isn't signed with a certain key.

No, I was referring to the blocks that prevent the OS from running on certain hardware as well. Building a hackintosh revolves around emulating or circumventing those protections.
 
2012-12-01 04:50:42 PM  

t3knomanser: mongbiohazard: And yet you can still root your iPhone and run alternative software on it.

Let's not pretend that's a real solution. Yes, you can crack it, and then you get to play with the death-spiral of trying to keep patches up to date and restoring from backups constantly and the next OS release potentially bricking your phone, etc. etc. etc.



I wouldn't dream of pretending that's a "real solution"... but let's also not pretend it isn't already a reality. Millions of people jailbreak their idevices. Jailbreaking has gotten so popular it has attracted mainstream reporting and made it in to the mainstream lexicon. It's here to stay, there are a number of free tools which make it easy for almost anyone to do it, and the hackers/crackers/sharers will always win in the end.

No, my "solution" was the second part of my post. That the content industries are simply going to have to come to terms with the fact that technological advancements mean that they will have to deal with similar impacts that other industries have had from the march of technological progress. Since their product isn't physical though if they want to survive at all they'll need to start offering cheap and compelling enough products - and access to those products - to convince people that they want to continue spend their money with them. If they do not, they will wither. Considering the recording and motion picture industries have acted like mobbed up bullies so often over the decades I won't shed a single tear for them if they continue to keep their heads in the sand and kill themselves with stubborn stupidity.

Right or wrong is irrelevant. Pandora's box has been opened, and things will change whether we agree with them or not. My mother in law used to be one of the folks in charge of digital media for the Library of Congress. We've had a couple of interesting discussions about the future of information, but she's always had a tough time with the implications of changing technology. She'd tell me things like that she thought as a society we needed to figure out what was right and wrong with media sharing to stop the impact of piracy, and how more research needed to be done on how to secure content. I'd always argue how that whole aspect was entirely moot, since the technology just by its nature created capabilities for sharing which would never go away no matter how much you agree or disagree with them. That media sharing was here to stay and that the whole landscape of media consumption and the big companies which have been behind it in the past needed to adapt - and most likely shrink - or they would be left behind.

No matter what DRM is invented there will always be 100x as many people trying to crack it as create it, and breaking those schemes is inherently easier than creating them. It has always been a losing battle, and it will always be a losing battle. The sooner companies realize this and stop wasting resources on it the better and the more likely they'll be able to figure out how to survive before it's too late for them. In 50 years the situation will be settled, whether they like it or not.
 
2012-12-01 09:16:44 PM  
Nowadays, if you pay for cable, you also get lots of commercials, which weren't there when cable started, and which are getting longer and longer over the years. Plus, the prices are going up. Not to mention that the level of pay a CEO gets versus an average worker is insane in this country, when compared to what it was in the past, or what it is in other countries. What you're really seeing is companies trying to be more and more greedy, and people saying "Fark no." I think piracy would still exist without these factors, but those factors most certainly contribute in a huge way. If companies don't like the way the system is working, they need to change it to make it more reasonable, or just continue being greedy as their typical user base dwindles. The real issue is, once people go down the path of piracy, it's going to be difficult to get them back. Personally I think people should have to either watch commericals or pay for content, but not both. Maybe companies could let people choose one or the other.
 
2012-12-01 10:03:05 PM  

Superjoe: Personally I think people should have to either watch commericals or pay for content, but not both. Maybe companies could let people choose one or the other.


The problem with that is that ad revenue accounts for anywhere from 1/3 to 1/2 of network revenues. So, if you cut out advertising, it will increase the cost for the channel. Even the broadcast networks are charging subscriber fees these days.

I also think that the whole "cable never used to have commercials" is something of a myth. I've had cable since the late 1980s and I've always known cable networks to have commercials. Granted, the commercial time has increased, but that's more of a function of television in general needing to increase revenue than anything specific to cable.
 
2012-12-01 11:31:39 PM  

Cinaed: mr_a: I think content owners share a large percentage of the blame.

Yeah... no.

You always bought a license. You just didn't know what you were buying. You bought a book. Inherent in that purchase is a limited use license. You bought a CD, you bought a limited use license. That 'All Rights Reserved' stuff isn't printed on all kinds of shiat for fun. It was there to remind you and so many others that 'yes this is your copy, but all those other rights the creator(s) has are still very much theirs (like the right for distribution and reproduction) and don't you farking forget it.

I just bought a book at a yard sale. A CD too. Just sold a CD on eBay. Gave a book to a friend.

What is this license to physical media you speak of?
 
2012-12-01 11:44:49 PM  

Endive Wombat: I used to be a huge (by my standards) pirate. Games, movies, music...now, I never do...and here is why:

I see that the industry is changing for the positive...well, at least beginning to:
Music - I gladly pay $30something a year for Pandora
Movies - I can stream a newly released, full HD movie to one of my many devices, VUDU, Zune, Netflix, etc
Games - Steam

I think that there are some flaws with the current system, love how a kindle book costs just as much, sometimes more than a physical copy...the fact that I cannot lend it out is just retarded. The idea that I do not own the content I paid for is somewhat scary, but I think as the dinosaurs of the entertainment industry retire and die off, we will see more and more subscription based access. Rather than pay for 4 MGM movies at $25 a pop per BluRay, I would have access to their entire catalog to stream from. Hunger Games was the last BluRay I purchased, and Harry Potter before that. I rarely buy physical media now. I really think that unlimited based subscription is the way to go.


The problem you run into here is money. Say you pay MGM $30 a year for their content. But wait! Paramount has some I want so there is another $30. I am now happy but wait! Now someone else has what I want to see. Another $30. You see where this is going.

Then you have the paid the $30 but the movie I want to see is no longer available. Or I want to watch it but my service is down. Or my connection is saturated and it buffers. I have never seen a DVD buffer. Heck, even my Comcast TV watching stutters now.

Then they all decide it is not profitable and shut down. In the meantime they didn't make DVDs because they were doing well until the end. Now you are stuck with nothing.

So no, that is not the solution. 

In the end it is better to own the content.
 
2012-12-01 11:59:39 PM  

Honest Bender: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Kindle books use DRM to prevent that. Also, seriously, you've never loaned a book?

DRM can be stripped out so easily it's laughable. So easy that I didn't feel it was necessary to even mention it in my previous post. And no, I've never had occasion to lend a book.


I've loaned out many books to my kids. Never got one of them back. As expected.
 
2012-12-02 12:02:16 AM  

rugman11: Superjoe: Personally I think people should have to either watch commericals or pay for content, but not both. Maybe companies could let people choose one or the other.

The problem with that is that ad revenue accounts for anywhere from 1/3 to 1/2 of network revenues. So, if you cut out advertising, it will increase the cost for the channel. Even the broadcast networks are charging subscriber fees these days.

I also think that the whole "cable never used to have commercials" is something of a myth. I've had cable since the late 1980s and I've always known cable networks to have commercials. Granted, the commercial time has increased, but that's more of a function of television in general needing to increase revenue than anything specific to cable.


This. I've had cable since 1987, and outside of the premium channels they all have had commercials during shows.
 
2012-12-02 12:09:44 AM  

rugman11: I also think that the whole "cable never used to have commercials" is something of a myth. I've had cable since the late 1980s and I've always known cable networks to have commercials. Granted, the commercial time has increased, but that's more of a function of television in general needing to increase revenue than anything specific to cable.


I was there when cable started. Yes, they have always had commercials.
 
2012-12-02 01:03:22 AM  

rugman11: Superjoe: Personally I think people should have to either watch commericals or pay for content, but not both. Maybe companies could let people choose one or the other.

The problem with that is that ad revenue accounts for anywhere from 1/3 to 1/2 of network revenues. So, if you cut out advertising, it will increase the cost for the channel. Even the broadcast networks are charging subscriber fees these days.

I also think that the whole "cable never used to have commercials" is something of a myth. I've had cable since the late 1980s and I've always known cable networks to have commercials. Granted, the commercial time has increased, but that's more of a function of television in general needing to increase revenue than anything specific to cable.


I had cable as a kid around that point myself with commercials, although Disney Channel didn't have them and do now. I always figured it applied to really early, late 70s-early 80s cable.
 
2012-12-02 02:08:04 AM  

Mad_Radhu: You're delusional with Apple hate if you can't admit that Apple hasn't utterly redefined the smartphone and tablet categories and made them hugely popular with consumers.


Yeah, fine. Apple told people they wanted something, and people bought it. That's lifestyle marketing, and it's Apple's bread and butter. They didn't add any functionality to mobile computing that wasn't already in the works. They just packaged it well. Most of what Apple has to offer has always been in the packaging. Sometimes they hit, and sometimes they miss, but the real genius behind the company's success has been in selling an image, not selling groundbreaking tech.

I don't hate Apple, nor do I hate people who use their products. My wife is one, FFS. I just don't have an overblown opinion of their contribution to the world. They sell an idea of what personal computing should be that I don't really have much respect for.

They also abuse the application of proprietary hardware and software to a degree that I find a bit arrogant and insulting. Sony does the same thing to a lesser degree, and I wouldn't buy a Sony laptop either. You know when you buy a new gadget, and you pull it out of the box and notice that the data transfer cable uses some pointless unique connector that offers zero improvement over a normal mini usb? And then you look up the part and find out that it costs 5 times as much as a standard cable would? It's really annoying, right? For me, that happens about every 5 seconds whenever I try to use an Apple product. It's just not worth it to me.
 
2012-12-02 05:56:21 AM  
Z-clipped: They also abuse the application of proprietary hardware and software to a degree that I find a bit arrogant and insulting. Sony does the same thing to a lesser degree

Come on, you know you loved memory sticks :P
 
2012-12-02 06:50:49 AM  

lordargent: Come on, you know you loved memory sticks :P


I do recall wanting one of the VAIO Picturebooks pretty badly when they hit the market in '99 or 2000 or something. I tend to like small and portable, and those things were shiny as hell. Luckily, my buddy did me the favor of talking me out of it at the time.

Didn't Sony havesay they had a 2TB memory stick a while back?
 
2012-12-02 10:04:21 PM  
The thing I find funny is the publishers who think DRM/papaerback only on books does anything to stop piracy.

A lot of "dead tree only" books still had pirate ebooks available, meaning the only way to get the books for those who want digital formats is piracy.

Real smart move there dumbasses.
 
Displayed 75 of 75 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report