Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

5265 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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 25 of 75 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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