Jim Henderson wrote:
> That's why it would be more correct/proper to answer "John and I will be 
> attending" (still passive voice, but the subject is unified between 
> discourse and sentence).

Sure. It just wasn't a *wrong* sentence, like "John and me will come" would be.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

On 21/01/2011 7:11 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> What were we talking about?;-)
>

No idea. Now.

>>> >>  I keep forgetting that you've got 20 years on me.  Shame on me, must be
>>> >>  that old memory thing.:-)
>>> >>
>> >  What did you say?
> I'm not sure.:)
>

What!
I heard that. Pardon?


>> >  Shame, but our loss is Oregon's gain. Head 'em up, move 'em out.
>> >  http://tinyurl.com/67bqthx
> Nice of you to say - who knows, maybe the rules will change while it's
> still feasible for us.  I blame Cameron (though that's largely "just
> because").
>

I blame Cameron, too. ;-)

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 21/01/2011 7:42 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> That's why it would be more correct/proper to answer "John and I will
>> be attending" (still passive voice, but the subject is unified between
>> discourse and sentence).
>
> Sure. It just wasn't a *wrong* sentence, like "John and me will come"
> would be.
>

Rude as well ;-)

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 1/20/2011 2:10 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>> you could, for legit use, photocopy pages out of a book, for a
>>> classroom, or to show someone, etc., as long as you don't *sell* the
>>> book, or its pages, to someone else.
>>
>> That's not actually the case, and never has been.
>>
> Fair use. You mention it yourself soon after.

Yes. But it's not just "if you're not selling it, it's OK." That's a common 
mistake people have. Photocopying an entire article out of a magazine and 
giving it out to your class for free is *not* fair use.

> All well and good, but, in a practical sense, this is meaningless for 
> "digital" content.

Not really. People just get in trouble because they're making copies 
illegally. Show me someone who has been sued for ripping a CD he owns so he 
can listen to it himself, without giving either to anyone else.

>> Yes. That's called "public performance", and it's not one of the legal
>> rights you get when you purchase the content.
>>
> Oddly, reading a book isn't "public performance". Even if you put it 
> under a projector it probably wouldn't be. On the other hand.. plug your 
> iPad into a big display on a wall... Would it?

Note that it's more "public" in question than "performance". Certainly 
getting up on stage in front of a crowd and reading poetry from a book is 
public performance.

>>> They could, in principle, even deny you the right to what you already
>>> have, if they put in a clause for it, rent it to you (I mean WTF),
>>> and, more to the point, stop supporting the device, in effect, denying
>>> your right to ***everything*** you bought that is on it.
>>
>> This isn't true, as I understand it. I'm sure there are loopholes and
>> such, and that it's more complex than either of us are giving credit
>> for, but the intention isn't to keep you from playing stuff you legally
>> own.
>>
> The biggest "loophole" is, if the software stops working, or the server 
> goes down, even if they promised to let you replace a copy, if you lost 
> the local one, you lose the thing you bought. So, no, I am quite correct 
> in this.

You were talking about something different. I was talking about the 
legality, you're talking about the technology.

> Same with "giving/selling the original". Try that with an eBook...

That's certainly harder without support from the vendor.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 11:42:55 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> That's why it would be more correct/proper to answer "John and I will
>> be attending" (still passive voice, but the subject is unified between
>> discourse and sentence).
> 
> Sure. It just wasn't a *wrong* sentence, like "John and me will come"
> would be.

Correct.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 19:46:36 +0000, Stephen wrote:

>>> >  What did you say?
>> I'm not sure.:)
>>
> What!
> I heard that. Pardon?

I said "Duck Season!" ;-)

>>> >  Shame, but our loss is Oregon's gain. Head 'em up, move 'em out.
>>> >  http://tinyurl.com/67bqthx
>> Nice of you to say - who knows, maybe the rules will change while it's
>> still feasible for us.  I blame Cameron (though that's largely "just
>> because").
>>
>>
> I blame Cameron, too. ;-)

I'm not surprised. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 21/01/2011 7:51 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> What!
>> >  I heard that. Pardon?
> I said "Duck Season!";-)
>

Oh!No! You didn't

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 19:55:18 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 21/01/2011 7:51 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> What!
>>> >  I heard that. Pardon?
>> I said "Duck Season!";-)
>>
>>
> Oh!No! You didn't

You sure about that?  After all, you said you didn't hear what I 
said....maybe you did after all. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 21/01/2011 8:10 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 19:55:18 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 21/01/2011 7:51 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> What!
>>>>>   I heard that. Pardon?
>>> I said "Duck Season!";-)
>>>
>>>
>> Oh!No! You didn't
>
> You sure about that?  After all, you said you didn't hear what I
> said....maybe you did after all. ;-)
>

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'bang.jpg' (27 KB)

Preview of image 'bang.jpg'

On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 20:12:42 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> [graphic "BANG!"]

LOL

That would explain the hearing loss. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 21/01/2011 11:12 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 20:12:42 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> [graphic "BANG!"]
>
> LOL
>
> That would explain the hearing loss. ;-)
>

What did you say :-P

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 23:26:31 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 21/01/2011 11:12 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 20:12:42 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> [graphic "BANG!"]
>>
>> LOL
>>
>> That would explain the hearing loss. ;-)
>>
>>
> What did you say :-P

I dunno. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 1/21/2011 12:48 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> On 1/20/2011 2:10 PM, Darren New wrote:
>>> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>>> you could, for legit use, photocopy pages out of a book, for a
>>>> classroom, or to show someone, etc., as long as you don't *sell* the
>>>> book, or its pages, to someone else.
>>>
>>> That's not actually the case, and never has been.
>>>
>> Fair use. You mention it yourself soon after.
>
> Yes. But it's not just "if you're not selling it, it's OK." That's a
> common mistake people have. Photocopying an entire article out of a
> magazine and giving it out to your class for free is *not* fair use.
>
>> All well and good, but, in a practical sense, this is meaningless for
>> "digital" content.
>
> Not really. People just get in trouble because they're making copies
> illegally. Show me someone who has been sued for ripping a CD he owns so
> he can listen to it himself, without giving either to anyone else.
>
>>> Yes. That's called "public performance", and it's not one of the legal
>>> rights you get when you purchase the content.
>>>
>> Oddly, reading a book isn't "public performance". Even if you put it
>> under a projector it probably wouldn't be. On the other hand.. plug
>> your iPad into a big display on a wall... Would it?
>
> Note that it's more "public" in question than "performance". Certainly
> getting up on stage in front of a crowd and reading poetry from a book
> is public performance.
>
>>>> They could, in principle, even deny you the right to what you already
>>>> have, if they put in a clause for it, rent it to you (I mean WTF),
>>>> and, more to the point, stop supporting the device, in effect, denying
>>>> your right to ***everything*** you bought that is on it.
>>>
>>> This isn't true, as I understand it. I'm sure there are loopholes and
>>> such, and that it's more complex than either of us are giving credit
>>> for, but the intention isn't to keep you from playing stuff you legally
>>> own.
>>>
>> The biggest "loophole" is, if the software stops working, or the
>> server goes down, even if they promised to let you replace a copy, if
>> you lost the local one, you lose the thing you bought. So, no, I am
>> quite correct in this.
>
> You were talking about something different. I was talking about the
> legality, you're talking about the technology.
>
>> Same with "giving/selling the original". Try that with an eBook...
>
> That's certainly harder without support from the vendor.
>
Let just say that its complex, and the DMCA doesn't address complexity, 
just protections, and as such creates barriers and confusion.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On 1/21/2011 12:17 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 09:00:42 +0000, Invisible wrote:
>
>> On 20/01/2011 08:55 PM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>
>>> Yet, even in that case, you could, for legit use, photocopy pages out
>>> of a book, for a classroom, or to show someone, etc., as long as you
>>> don't *sell* the book, or its pages, to someone else. Not so with DRMed
>>> stuff.
>>
>> I'm not sure about the USA, but in the UK you can't photocopy stuff for
>> use in the classroom without the copyright holder's permission. (Wanna
>> guess why school materials cost so much?)
>
> That's the way it is in the US as well.
>
> Jim
Never mind that its almost a necessity, given the cost of school books, 
the limit on which ones may be available, and the lack of money to 
replace them when outdated (or found to contain incorrect information). 
Its not entirely unheard of for people to be using 50 year old books, 
with gross inaccuracies, and have the school unwilling, or unable, to 
supplement/replace them.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On 1/20/2011 8:40 PM, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> scott<sco### [at] scottcom>  writes:
>
>>> Most people that I know feel the same way - I bought the (CD, ePub,
>>> whatever), so if I want to convert it to something more convenient for my
>>> own personal use, that's my business.
>>
>> Sure, but in a lot of cases people incorrectly believe they are doing no
>> harm by removing the DRM - I hear it all the time.  They feel hard done
>
> You can point out that their assumptions are questionable. You haven't,
> however, demonstrated that harm is done when they remove DRM.
>
>> understand that it's precisely those limitations that has even allowed
>> them to get the content in the first place (prime example BBC iPlayer or
>> at the extreme hiring DVDs).
>
> Not always. And even if they were the reasons, it's not at all clear
> that removing DRM does harm.
>
> Most importantly, from the wider context, you need to define what "harm"
> is. When I look at these issues, my only concern is maximizing artistic
> endeavors. I believe copyright's only role is to enable that, and that
> was historically how it all began. People making a livelihood via the
> arts is simply not a factor that need be taken into account.
>
Ah, well. "Harm" is the billions and billions lost to people not buying 
the overpriced books, because they are all too stupid to find ways 
around the DRM anyway... You know, those estimates of "loses" which 
never materialized when it went into effect, and in fact seemed to have 
the opposite result in some interpretations. Brought to you by the same 
man that wrote the estimates on how many millions of people are going to 
be waiting in line at the Ark amusement park Canned Ham is still 
planning to build using government money.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On 1/21/2011 6:31 AM, scott wrote:
>> Yes, some *companies* do this. And there are laws to prevent it. What
>> I'm saying is that some random dude on the street isn't going to do
>> this. It's far too expensive, for a start.
>
> OK I understand your point.
>
>> No. I mean that it only takes one single person to work out how to
>> defeat DRM (which will happen with probability 1), and your system is
>> broken. You no longer have control over what people do with your data.
>
> But the DRM is not useless in that situation, as not everyone knows how
> to find illegal copies.
>
>> (More to the point, with current DRM systems, it's actually *easier* to
>> use the cracked content than the genuine article. Incentive to pay,
>> much?)
>
> A good example is the adverts before a film on a DVD that you are forced
> to watch. A cracked copy will usually cut out the adverts, and some
> people would say it is doing no harm by doing that themselves for their
> own personal use. But, the fact that the adverts cannot be skipped is
> actually creating income for the publisher, without them they'd need to
> charge more for the DVD in the first place.
>
This is funnier than hell. You do realize that 100% of those 
advertisement are for products *produced* by the same company that you 
bought the DVD from? Who are they losing revenue from if you remove 
them, themselves?

Sure, you "might" see something you want to buy later, but if you own 
everything they are advertising already, or would never buy them in the 
first place... ridiculous!

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> writes:

>>> Surely they are not all wrong?
>>
>> That's a rather weak argument, isn't it?
>
> Well they surely have a lot more information than most of us do on the
> subject, plus they are forced by shareholders to make profit, so it
> seems unlikely they took the decision to invest in and use DRM without
> some thought.

Your argument essentially is: "Smart people. Trust them."

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> writes:

> The question is, if publishers gave an option to remove DRM (for free)
> when you bought the material, would they make as much money?  It seems
> like almost every publisher thinks they wouldn't, which is why they
> don't offer such an offer, and actually *spend* a lot of money to try
> and "improve" the DRM.  Surely they are not all wrong?

That's because many would then share it with others. Which is different
from me removing DRM from what I've bought. 

>>> you are not buying the right to unlimited personal use.  If you were
>>> then you'd likely have to pay more.
>>
>> You keep saying that, and while logical, you have not supported
>> it.
>
> It's obvious if you think about it though.  At the extreme when you rent
> a film (or pay-per-view TV or BBC license fee etc) you pay a relatively
> small sum for a product that is limited in the number of times you are
> allowed to view it or the length of time you can watch it for.  It would
> be crazy if it were legal to then use that content forever for any
> personal use.  IANAL but I'm pretty sure you'd get sued for this.

Giving examples does not make it true for all cases. Just because it's
part of many business plans does not make it part of all business
plans. If you want to claim it's true in, say, the fiction publishing
world, you'll need to support that with data - not cite examples from
various industries.

I never suggested no one has a business plan like this. Just that if
you're going to claim it, you need to:

1. Show that it is part of the business plan.
2. Show that they'll lose money if that plan is subverted.

Now, someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but in the US, I'm free to
record for perpetuity that which is broadcast on the airwaves, or even
cable TV. No legal repercussions.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> writes:

>> Not always. And even if they were the reasons, it's not at all clear
>> that removing DRM does harm.
>
> It's not removing the DRM itself, it's what you do afterwards (which
> presumably you couldn't do before - or else, why did you bother?)

The context was Jim saying one who purchases it can strip DRM, and
that's fine as long as it's just for personal use. 

I concur.

>> Most importantly, from the wider context, you need to define what "harm"
>> is. When I look at these issues, my only concern is maximizing artistic
>> endeavours. I believe copyright's only role is to enable that, and that
>> was historically how it all began. People making a livelihood via the
>> arts is simply not a factor that need be taken into account.
>
> Um... in what way do you suppose copyright was supposed to "maximize
> artistic endeavours" other than "people making a livelihood via the
> arts"??

It's not obvious that the two goals are always aligned, and even if they
are or once were, that they always will be.

My point is that if you're going to judge the morality of something
involving copyright, the question to ask is "How does this impact the
production of the arts?" and not "Will people no longer make a living
out of this?"

People will write books even if there is no copyright. Perhaps not as
many, but they still will. Provide legal help if one can increase that
output, but only enough to maximize output - and no more. 

>> The publisher does not have absolute rights on this, as the courts have
>> shown. Their terms have to conform to certain standards.
>
> More to the point, if somebody buys an item, they reasonably *expect* to
> be able to do certain things with it (depending on what the item is).

I've heard that the court opinion that ruled it's OK to resell books said
almost the same thing.

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
> Now, someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but in the US, I'm free to
> record for perpetuity that which is broadcast on the airwaves, or even
> cable TV. No legal repercussions.

I don't think that has been addressed. You can record something to watch it 
later, but I never heard of a case that addressed whether you could watch it 
more than once after you record it.

On the other hand, I have *never* heard of someone getting in trouble for 
recording or copying something solely for their own use. It just isn't worth 
the hassle.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

Am Fri, 21 Jan 2011 09:00:42 +0000 schrieb Invisible:

> I'm not sure about the USA, but in the UK you can't photocopy stuff for
> use in the classroom without the copyright holder's permission. (Wanna
> guess why school materials cost so much?)

That is interesting (especially the situation in the netherlands) as it 
is different from germany. Under certain conditions it is legal to copy  
parts of a work for educational purposes (and even for private usage 
under certain conditions). But because of this we pay a small fee on any 
medium or recording device (according to wikipedia 17 cent on a blank DVD 
disc and 9.21 Euro on a DVD Burner)

Post a reply to this message

On 22/01/2011 11:58 AM, Florian Pesth wrote:

> That is interesting (especially the situation in the netherlands) as it
> is different from germany. Under certain conditions it is legal to copy
> parts of a work for educational purposes (and even for private usage
> under certain conditions). But because of this we pay a small fee on any
> medium or recording device (according to wikipedia 17 cent on a blank DVD
> disc and 9.21 Euro on a DVD Burner)

Ah yes, the old "if you have equipment that can copy things you're 
obviously using it to copy protected works" assumption. Nice.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On 21/01/2011 01:31 PM, scott wrote:

>> No. I mean that it only takes one single person to work out how to
>> defeat DRM (which will happen with probability 1), and your system is
>> broken. You no longer have control over what people do with your data.
>
> But the DRM is not useless in that situation, as not everyone knows how
> to find illegal copies.

And not everybody knows how to turn on a DVD player either.

The question is whether "enough" people know how to find this stuff, or 
are willing to use it rather than pay.

>> (More to the point, with current DRM systems, it's actually *easier* to
>> use the cracked content than the genuine article. Incentive to pay,
>> much?)
>
> A good example is the adverts before a film on a DVD that you are forced
> to watch. A cracked copy will usually cut out the adverts, and some
> people would say it is doing no harm by doing that themselves for their
> own personal use. But, the fact that the adverts cannot be skipped is
> actually creating income for the publisher, without them they'd need to
> charge more for the DVD in the first place.

I've yet to see a DVD where you can't skip the adverts. Usually you 
cannot skip the studio logo, and you can't skip the "piracy is illegal" 
warning, but you can skip everything else.

It's a bit like the old argument over TV adverts. Some people skip 'em, 
but many TV channels couldn't exist without those adverts.

>> Emphasis "yet"...
>
> I don't see the channels used for pirate content becoming any more
> mainstream, you still need to be "in the know" to find where to get such
> stuff, and there's always the risk you'll get caught and sent a fine
> and/or blocked by your ISP. And the more popular such places become, the
> more likely they are to get shut down.

Think of a film. Any film. Now search YouTube and see how many 
full-length copies of it you can find in 0.2 seconds.

> As of today DRM is apparently the best solution.

That would explain why all the big music sites are how shouting and 
cheering that they offer DRM-free downloads.

Oh, wait...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On 22/01/2011 06:22 AM, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> scott<sco### [at] scottcom>  writes:
>
>>>> Surely they are not all wrong?
>>>
>>> That's a rather weak argument, isn't it?
>>
>> Well they surely have a lot more information than most of us do on the
>> subject, plus they are forced by shareholders to make profit, so it
>> seems unlikely they took the decision to invest in and use DRM without
>> some thought.
>
> Your argument essentially is: "Smart people. Trust them."

It's not as if it's unusual for large corporations to behave in 
irrational and/or counter-productive ways. The fact that lots of them 
use DRM could be "wishful thinking" more than any actual proof of 
effectiveness.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On 21/01/2011 11:43 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 23:26:31 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 21/01/2011 11:12 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 20:12:42 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>>
>>>> [graphic "BANG!"]
>>>
>>> LOL
>>>
>>> That would explain the hearing loss. ;-)
>>>
>>>
>> What did you say :-P
>
> I dunno. ;-)
>

But I thought...

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Florian Pesth wrote:
> Under certain conditions it is legal to copy  
> parts of a work for educational purposes 

Even in the USA, this is true. It's called "fair use."

For example, if you want to quote something that someone said in order to 
criticize it or parody it, that's "fair use" and copyright does not restrict 
you.

However, we have also had cases where teachers would collect several dozen 
articles from magazines and journals, photocopy them for each student, and 
bind them into a book for class. This is obviously using them as a textbook, 
not critiquing them, so that's illegal.

> But because of this we pay a small fee on any 
> medium or recording device (according to wikipedia 17 cent on a blank DVD 
> disc and 9.21 Euro on a DVD Burner)

I have heard this is the case in the USA, but it doesn't get itemized so I 
never found out if it's true. However, I'm pretty sure it has nothing to do 
with "fair use" and entirely to do with the recording companies bribing our 
legislators.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> It's not as if it's unusual for large corporations to behave in 
> irrational and/or counter-productive ways. The fact that lots of them 
> use DRM could be "wishful thinking" more than any actual proof of 
> effectiveness.

I suspect that people are looking at what's best for the "corporation" 
instead of what's best for the management. What's best for the management is 
to make the shareholders happy. If the large shareholders don't do the 
proper research and simply insist the management institutes DRM[*], that's 
what's going to happen, even if the management knows it's a bad idea, as 
long as it's not so obviously a bad idea that the management gets fired for 
listening to the shareholders.

I.e., it's about the story, just like the TSA is about the story, even if 
both are essentially ineffective.



[*] "People are copying our music! We must do something!"
     "DRM is something."
     "We must do DRM!"

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

Am Sat, 22 Jan 2011 09:44:47 -0800 schrieb Darren New:

> For example, if you want to quote something that someone said in order
> to criticize it or parody it, that's "fair use" and copyright does not
> restrict you.

That's what I was thinking. It seems similar in the US (even though I'm 
not sure about the difference in the details it seems the purpose is the 
same). It seems stricter in the netherlands though, if I read andrel 
correctly. For this copy in germany you don't need to get permission from 
the copyright holder. I guess also that no teacher here tried to make his 
own books as the publishing houses are pretty powerful here and if there 
is not enough money it is more likely the parents have to pay for the 
school books (it depends on the part of germany but I read that where I 
went to school up to one third of the books has to be bought by the 
parents).

>> But because of this we pay a small fee on any medium or recording
>> device (according to wikipedia 17 cent on a blank DVD disc and 9.21
>> Euro on a DVD Burner)
> 
> I have heard this is the case in the USA, but it doesn't get itemized so
> I never found out if it's true. However, I'm pretty sure it has nothing
> to do with "fair use" and entirely to do with the recording companies
> bribing our legislators.

 In germany there is a large organization collecting money from this and 
distributing it to the "creators". In principle anyone can register at 
this organization and claim money, even if you have a private webpage and 
"create content" this way. It pays only for the big guys though (I think 
they start paying with 1500 unique page visits for a single page each 
month or something like that.

Post a reply to this message

Florian Pesth wrote:
> It seems stricter in the netherlands though, if I read andrel 
> correctly. For this copy in germany you don't need to get permission from 
> the copyright holder.

The "Kinko's" case is the one I actually looked at in school:

http://www.wsubooks.com/store1/wichita/copyright.htm

>  In germany there is a large organization collecting money from this and 
> distributing it to the "creators". In principle anyone can register at 
> this organization and claim money, even if you have a private webpage and 
> "create content" this way. It pays only for the big guys though (I think 
> they start paying with 1500 unique page visits for a single page each 
> month or something like that.

That's cool. Here, I think it goes to the same group that charges fees for 
playing music on the radio. There's a law here that says you can play any 
music you want for $X/play, and that music goes to some specific company 
that then redistributes it to the copyright holders. That way, each radio 
station doesn't have to set up a deal with each music studio.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

On 21-1-2011 10:05, Invisible wrote:
> On 20/01/2011 04:04 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> Invisible wrote:
>>> not sure that's a good assumption.
>>
>> It has been a very successful business model.
>
> It has been difficult to almost infeasible to duplicate content
> (depending on type, of course). That's one of the main reasons that
> specialised "publishers" needed to exist in the first place. It takes a
> lot of equipment to, say, print a book.
>
> Digital content is another matter...
>
>> It's not obvious it always
>> is or will continue to be so, but so far, lots of people have made it
>> work, and lots of people haven't.
>
> Apparently some people think I'm weird because I still buy all my music
> on CD. What can I say? I like holding the physical object in my hands,
> looking at the cover art, and being able to play it on a real hi-fi
> system (i.e., not my PC).

I also buy the CD's but I don't like the physical objects. They take up 
too much space and I can't find them when I need one. Basically the only 
thing that I do with them is rip them immediately after I bought them. 
Cover art can be nice but is too tiny for my old eyes as are the lyrics. 
I like Loreena McKennit, when you buy a cd from her she'll let you 
download an MP3 version immediately. I have no idea why Amazon does not 
do that too.*
Also my MP3 library is almost clear (some thing have stuck in it that I 
got from friends to listen to, but I do clean those up when I find 
them.) People do find this weird but respect in general my choice (their 
reaction is often similar to the one I get when they find out I don't 
drink alcohol).
I am still looking for a model that allows me to support an artist that 
I like directly. Perhaps if they let me buy the record that has not been 
made yet?
There is also the problem of finding an artist if I don't yet know 
her/him. What seems to be missing from the whole IP debate is the role 
of the person that recommends the music/book/fashion. These people are 
vital, but how do we pay them for sifting through the bulk of mediocre 
stuff? crosslinking and matching peoples taste partly solves it, but it 
is no real substitute for a DJ or the record shop owner with a 
encyclopaedic knowledge. (note to self, check if Cees Siekerman is still 
in business).

*) other than 'people find it hard to think straight'.

Post a reply to this message

>> A good example is the adverts before a film on a DVD that you are forced
>> to watch. A cracked copy will usually cut out the adverts, and some
>> people would say it is doing no harm by doing that themselves for their
>> own personal use. But, the fact that the adverts cannot be skipped is
>> actually creating income for the publisher, without them they'd need to
>> charge more for the DVD in the first place.
>>
> This is funnier than hell. You do realize that 100% of those
> advertisement are for products *produced* by the same company that you
> bought the DVD from? Who are they losing revenue from if you remove
> them, themselves?

> Sure, you "might" see something you want to buy later,

You seemed to answer your own question.

Post a reply to this message

> While there seems to be no restrictions in terms of TV size, a 3D TV
> needs a minimum refresh rate of 120Hz (a basic 60Hz displayed for each
> eye). The higher the refresh rate, the smoother the 3D effect. So a
> 240Hz set will be capable of outputting 120Hz to each eye.
>
> HDMI 1.4 will also be required for full HD per eye viewing."

According to the wikipedia article on HDMI there seems to be various 
options for how to actually send the 3D data along the link (frame by 
frame or left/right image joined together in each frame).  It's a bit 
unclear exactly how this is sent, but the table further down says that 
3D over 1080p60 is not possible.

> The forum post I found explaining why I couldn't just use a TV that
> claims 120hz, but isn't, I don't remember the link to. But, basically,
> while, in theory, you only need 25 frames a second to "see" an image,
> this isn't practical for various reasons, especially motion issues,
> which is why games *attempt* to always produce at least 50 frames a
> second, if not 60. The difference "is" visible, since even though the
> eye only needs 25, those 25 don't necessarily match the "frame rate" the
> eye is looking at the screen with (i.e., your meat system isn't
> "synchronized" with the refresh rate on the display). So, trying to use
> 30 frames a second, by splitting 60hz (i.e. 60 frames) flat out won't
> work properly. The closer you can get to 60 frames a second per eye, the
> less likely you are to notice any sort of flicker, blurring, etc., from
> desynching.

I guess the TV processes whatever input it is getting and then decides 
how to display it.  If it's getting a 2xp24 input then it probably shows 
each eye frame twice alternately.

Next step is to find out if it's possible to coax a standard PC/GPU/3DTV 
to show a 120 Hz 2D image...

Post a reply to this message

On 21/01/2011 05:01 PM, Darren New wrote:

> So the model does work. How well and for how many is another question.

I guess it depends on how popular your work is, who wants is, and what 
type of people they are.

Actually, that sounds pretty much like the success factors for a 
*normal* distribution channel...

Post a reply to this message

On 22/01/2011 10:48 PM, andrel wrote:

> There is also the problem of finding an artist if I don't yet know
> her/him. What seems to be missing from the whole IP debate is the role
> of the person that recommends the music/book/fashion. These people are
> vital, but how do we pay them for sifting through the bulk of mediocre
> stuff?

Yeah, there is the argument that by "illegally" showing people music or 
whatever that they didn't pay for, they might well go out and buy a copy 
themselves.

I still find it slightly weird that if I ask a friend to copy a CD for 
me, that's illegal. But if I turn on my radio and listen to the exact 
same music, that's completely legal. Either way it costs me nothing, and 
it's the exact same music. WTF?

Post a reply to this message

>>> Depends on the quality you're looking for, but yes, having the right
>>> tools helps (in both cases).
>>
>> I'd suggest having the right technicians helps more. Mix engineering is
>> non-trivial, whether you have the right equipment or not.
>
> I consider the personnel part of the toolset in this case.  Just like if
> you're publishing a technical book, having a good technical reviewer and
> editor is essential to ending with a good product.

Drifting somewhat off topic here, but today you can buy software and 
hardware that lets you use a home PC to do almost everything that would 
be possible in a recording studio. (About the only bit you *can't* 
easily do is really high quality recording of acoustic signals. But if 
you're making synthesizer music like me, that's irrelevant.)

The difference, of course, is that me twiddling with the equaliser knob 
is no match for a professional mix engineer who knows WTF he's doing. 
And if you listen to the music I've made, you can tell it doesn't sound 
very good.

Post a reply to this message

> I still find it slightly weird that if I ask a friend to copy a CD for
> me, that's illegal. But if I turn on my radio and listen to the exact
> same music, that's completely legal. Either way it costs me nothing, and
> it's the exact same music. WTF?

Why is that weird?  A radio station is a company making money.  They 
give you music you want, and in return you listen to their adverts.  So 
long as the radio station makes more money from advertising income than 
it has to pay to the content owners then it will work.

Of course stations run by the BBC don't have adverts, but everyone is 
forced to pay a license fee for that.

Post a reply to this message

On 21/01/2011 06:16 PM, Darren New wrote:

> Basically, the music and film industry depends on it being possible to
> make copies but not cheap to make copies.

And now those assumptions have been brutally violated. You say the 
industry needs to "deal with that", but I'm really not sure where that 
leaves us. The only obvious solution is to just not sell content for 
money any more, since the model isn't workable. (This of course leads 
directly to high quality content no longer being made, which would be 
very sad.)

>> But then of course, the publishers think "OK, well if we embed this
>> computer program, we can stop people copying it". (Actually no, no you
>> cannot. But the CEO probably isn't smart enough to comprehend this.)
>
> Even if he is, the shareholders aren't. It's like the TSA - security
> theater.

What's TSA?

>> I have no problem with content creators expecting a return on their
>> investment. But I object to DRM, on a number of grounds. (Point #1
>> being "it doesn't work".)
>
> The real reason it doesn't work is that you only have to break it once.
> Once someone takes the copy protection off, they can distribute the
> broken version. So the DRM has to keep out the *smartest* attackers, not
> just the average attackers.

The other reason is that you *must* take the DRM off to use the thing. 
No matter which way the image data is encrypted, you /must/ decrypt it 
in order to see it. If you can see it, you can copy it.

About the only thing this potentially doesn't apply to is computer 
software. (Or anything similarly interactive, I guess.) Even then, if 
you can somehow pluck the decrypted data out of the computer's memory...

Post a reply to this message

On 24/01/2011 09:40 AM, scott wrote:
>> I still find it slightly weird that if I ask a friend to copy a CD for
>> me, that's illegal. But if I turn on my radio and listen to the exact
>> same music, that's completely legal. Either way it costs me nothing, and
>> it's the exact same music. WTF?
>
> Why is that weird? A radio station is a company making money.

How the hell does that work though? They don't do anything that produces 
income.

> They give you music you want, and in return you listen to their adverts.

Seriously? That actually generates more than a few pence per day?

Post a reply to this message

>> They give you music you want, and in return you listen to their adverts.
>
> Seriously? That actually generates more than a few pence per day?

People pay thousands of pounds to have their advert on radio.

Post a reply to this message

On 24/01/2011 10:05 AM, scott wrote:
>>> They give you music you want, and in return you listen to their adverts.
>>
>> Seriously? That actually generates more than a few pence per day?
>
> People pay thousands of pounds to have their advert on radio.

OK, but that still only works out to a few pennies per day over the 
duration that the advert plays for. I would have thought that even if 
you played adverts 24/7, you would never come close to making enough 
money to cover even the basic costs of electricity to run the 
transmitter, never mind all the other stuff you'd need to pay for. And 
the few actual radio stations I've listened to don't play adverts very 
much at all.

(More to the point, what adverts they do play inevitably sound very 
cheap and amateurish. Not at all like the slick, polished adverts that 
constantly bombard you on TV. Presumably advertising on radio is much 
cheaper than TV - although I also wonder how the hell TV makes enough 
money to keep going...)

Post a reply to this message

>> People pay thousands of pounds to have their advert on radio.
>
> OK, but that still only works out to a few pennies per day over the
> duration that the advert plays for.

A quick google states a price of 1000 pounds per week to advertise on a 
large regional station.  Given they probably have 20 or so different 
adverts that equates to an income of 20k per week for the station.

> (More to the point, what adverts they do play inevitably sound very
> cheap and amateurish. Not at all like the slick, polished adverts that
> constantly bombard you on TV. Presumably advertising on radio is much
> cheaper than TV -

That same site I found above also mentioned you should spend about 10% 
of your budget on actually making the advert (presumably 90% on 
advertising fees to the station).

Post a reply to this message

On 24/01/2011 10:22 AM, scott wrote:
>>> People pay thousands of pounds to have their advert on radio.
>>
>> OK, but that still only works out to a few pennies per day over the
>> duration that the advert plays for.
>
> A quick google states a price of 1000 pounds per week to advertise on a
> large regional station. Given they probably have 20 or so different
> adverts that equates to an income of 20k per week for the station.

Interesting. I can't begin to imagine how Dave's Kebab Shop has anywhere 
near £1000 a week to blow on ineffective advertising, but anyway... I'm 
still left wondering whether £20k per week would go anywhere near 
covering the total running costs of a radio station.

> That same site I found above also mentioned you should spend about 10%
> of your budget on actually making the advert (presumably 90% on
> advertising fees to the station).

Seems reasonable. You're only going to make it once, but presumably play 
it a whole lot...

Post a reply to this message

On 24-1-2011 10:26, Invisible wrote:
> On 22/01/2011 10:48 PM, andrel wrote:
>
>> There is also the problem of finding an artist if I don't yet know
>> her/him. What seems to be missing from the whole IP debate is the role
>> of the person that recommends the music/book/fashion. These people are
>> vital, but how do we pay them for sifting through the bulk of mediocre
>> stuff?
>
> Yeah, there is the argument that by "illegally" showing people music or
> whatever that they didn't pay for, they might well go out and buy a copy
> themselves.

That is not what I meant. I meant DJ's (the old fashioned ones that know 
what they play in stead of just working from a play list) and record 
shop owners. The ideal model for the latter is that
- you come into the shop
- they either know you or you tell them what sort of music you like
- they recommend some music to try.
- they play you some examples
- you make a selection from their recommendations
- you buy those
- they get a commission
- everybody happy

(Yes, I know a shop that works that way. Even to the extend that I can 
tell people that want to give me a present (happens about once a year) 
to go there and tell it is for me).

That is a model that should also work on the internet (and not only for 
records but also for books and fashion), yet I have the feeling that it 
won't. The commission is the most likely problem. That should come from 
the record company and I don't see that happening. But if it is paid by 
the customer, they will take the advise and buy on amazon.
Related to that. Last year I was helping out at a concert in Alkmaar 
(http://www.leidsekoorboeken.nl/en/the-project/the-leiden-choirbooks-eng.html) 
part of what we did was selling the CD's. You could also buy them at the 
internet in a big store, where they were cheaper than what the group had 
to pay themselves to sell them to the audience. To cite someone: WTF?


> I still find it slightly weird that if I ask a friend to copy a CD for
> me, that's illegal. But if I turn on my radio and listen to the exact
> same music, that's completely legal. Either way it costs me nothing, and
> it's the exact same music. WTF?

One difference is that on the radio you hear it once with some talking 
over in general, whereas from your friend you get the entire thing to keep.

Post a reply to this message

On 1/24/2011 1:42 AM, scott wrote:
>>> A good example is the adverts before a film on a DVD that you are forced
>>> to watch. A cracked copy will usually cut out the adverts, and some
>>> people would say it is doing no harm by doing that themselves for their
>>> own personal use. But, the fact that the adverts cannot be skipped is
>>> actually creating income for the publisher, without them they'd need to
>>> charge more for the DVD in the first place.
>>>
>> This is funnier than hell. You do realize that 100% of those
>> advertisement are for products *produced* by the same company that you
>> bought the DVD from? Who are they losing revenue from if you remove
>> them, themselves?
>
>> Sure, you "might" see something you want to buy later,
>
> You seemed to answer your own question.
Not really, because if I was interested in buying something else there 
are myriad other ways to find it, without having to run through 10 
minutes of crap, before getting to the movie. This was way worse on 
VCRs, and some bozos actually attempted to pass legislation that would 
have *required* DVD players to not allow you to bypass them at all. It 
didn't take long for them to figure out this would be a death knell, 
based on the consumer reaction to the 1-2 companies that initially tried 
to do it, by coding the disc so that the adverts where in the same 
segment as the FBI warning (which you can't skip). Even the courts where 
not too amused at those sorts of "demands" about whether or not 
commercials should be skippable, manually or otherwise. Though.. I am 
not sure how the cases ended up with respect to ones that did it 
automatically for you. They just didn't always work so well, so fell out 
of favor, I think.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On 24/01/2011 5:30 PM, andrel wrote:
> (Yes, I know a shop that works that way. Even to the extend that I can
> tell people that want to give me a present (happens about once a year)
> to go there and tell it is for me).

LOL “I’d like to buy a record for that weird PovRay guy.” ;-)

You’re lucky to have such a nice shop, BTW.


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 1/24/2011 2:45 AM, Invisible wrote:
> On 21/01/2011 06:16 PM, Darren New wrote:
>
>> Basically, the music and film industry depends on it being possible to
>> make copies but not cheap to make copies.
>
> And now those assumptions have been brutally violated. You say the
> industry needs to "deal with that", but I'm really not sure where that
> leaves us. The only obvious solution is to just not sell content for
> money any more, since the model isn't workable. (This of course leads
> directly to high quality content no longer being made, which would be
> very sad.)
>
>>> But then of course, the publishers think "OK, well if we embed this
>>> computer program, we can stop people copying it". (Actually no, no you
>>> cannot. But the CEO probably isn't smart enough to comprehend this.)
>>
>> Even if he is, the shareholders aren't. It's like the TSA - security
>> theater.
>
> What's TSA?
>
>>> I have no problem with content creators expecting a return on their
>>> investment. But I object to DRM, on a number of grounds. (Point #1
>>> being "it doesn't work".)
>>
>> The real reason it doesn't work is that you only have to break it once.
>> Once someone takes the copy protection off, they can distribute the
>> broken version. So the DRM has to keep out the *smartest* attackers, not
>> just the average attackers.
>
> The other reason is that you *must* take the DRM off to use the thing.
> No matter which way the image data is encrypted, you /must/ decrypt it
> in order to see it. If you can see it, you can copy it.
>
> About the only thing this potentially doesn't apply to is computer
> software. (Or anything similarly interactive, I guess.) Even then, if
> you can somehow pluck the decrypted data out of the computer's memory...
The logic being used seems to be:

1. You may use the key we provide to unlock your lock, as long as you 
get the key from the people that made the lock, not someone else.

2. You can pick your own lock, in some limited cases, sort of, just 
don't let us find out about it, or we will *assume* you intended to show 
other people how to do it.

3. You can't "make" an actual universal lock pick, or, at least, you 
need to destroy it as soon as you have used it, and never *ever* tell 
anyone else how it worked.

4. If you are actually stupid enough to sell the lock pick, or teach 
other people how to use them, you are dead meat.

5. This isn't really a lock persay, so there is no such thing as a "lock 
smith", who can *ever* let you get into the lock, should, somehow, the 
company that made the lock go out of business, or due to some other 
circumstance, it happens to become impossible to *get* a key to open it 
ever again.

Try those rules on anything else you "own" other than digital media and 
see how far you get...

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On 24-1-2011 18:42, Stephen wrote:
> On 24/01/2011 5:30 PM, andrel wrote:
>> (Yes, I know a shop that works that way. Even to the extend that I can
>> tell people that want to give me a present (happens about once a year)
>> to go there and tell it is for me).
>
> LOL “I’d like to buy a record for that weird PovRay guy.” ;-)

You can just use my name, but indeed, he knows I'm wierd.

> You’re lucky to have such a nice shop, BTW.

Quite a lot of music that I like now, I would not have known without 
him. It makes me a bit sad that the generation after me won't have this 
luxury. He started when you could make a living out of it. Enough to pay 
of his mortgage. If he had started now he wouldn't have a chance. both 
the internet and the record companies that don't want to support small 
shops. Takes too much time and they can more easily sell via the 
internet shops. We have had a situation where he ordered a CD for me and 
they simply did not deliver. After a few months waiting I bought it via 
Amazon and had it within a week.

Post a reply to this message

On 24/01/2011 6:11 PM, andrel wrote:
> On 24-1-2011 18:42, Stephen wrote:
>> On 24/01/2011 5:30 PM, andrel wrote:
>>> (Yes, I know a shop that works that way. Even to the extend that I can
>>> tell people that want to give me a present (happens about once a year)
>>> to go there and tell it is for me).
>>
>> LOL “I’d like to buy a record for that weird PovRay guy.” ;-)
>
> You can just use my name, but indeed, he knows I'm wierd.

Aren't we all? ;-)

>
>> You’re lucky to have such a nice shop, BTW.
>
> Quite a lot of music that I like now, I would not have known without
> him. It makes me a bit sad that the generation after me won't have this
> luxury. He started when you could make a living out of it. Enough to pay
> of his mortgage. If he had started now he wouldn't have a chance. both
> the internet and the record companies that don't want to support small
> shops. Takes too much time and they can more easily sell via the
> internet shops. We have had a situation where he ordered a CD for me and
> they simply did not deliver. After a few months waiting I bought it via
> Amazon and had it within a week.

It is good that you (and some others, I presume) are supporting him.
I sometimes despair for the world that the young are growing up in. 
Don’t get me wrong, there are lots of things in the modern world that 
are better than the one I grew up in. But personal contact and service 
are getting lost.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 24-1-2011 10:45, Invisible wrote:
> On 21/01/2011 06:16 PM, Darren New wrote:

>> Even if he is, the shareholders aren't. It's like the TSA - security
>> theater.
>
> What's TSA?

Oh come on. Been living under a stone again?
This about
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-jdDE6bFow
or the more funny counteraction
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHd3i7ZA2uU

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> On 21/01/2011 06:16 PM, Darren New wrote:
> 
>> Basically, the music and film industry depends on it being possible to
>> make copies but not cheap to make copies.
> 
> And now those assumptions have been brutally violated. 

Well, yes. That was my point.

> You say the 
> industry needs to "deal with that", but I'm really not sure where that 
> leaves us. The only obvious solution is to just not sell content for 
> money any more, since the model isn't workable. 

Well, you might show movies only in the movie theater, or at least count as 
gravy anything you sell outside the theater. You might make draconian DRM, 
or DRM so transparent that most people don't mind it (like with video game 
consoles or Steam). You might institute DRM that provides for fair use, like 
the ability for libraries to loan out Kindle documents or something but only 
to one person at a time.

> (This of course leads 
> directly to high quality content no longer being made, which would be 
> very sad.)

But that's my point. High quality content used to be made before it was easy 
to make copies at all. You can still go to plays that involve dozens of 
people working for you as you sit there watching. You can still go to live 
concerts with pyrotechnics. These things haven't died out.

>> Even if he is, the shareholders aren't. It's like the TSA - security
>> theater.
> 
> What's TSA?

The "security" at US airports that pretends to be catching terrorists.

>>> I have no problem with content creators expecting a return on their
>>> investment. But I object to DRM, on a number of grounds. (Point #1
>>> being "it doesn't work".)
>>
>> The real reason it doesn't work is that you only have to break it once.
>> Once someone takes the copy protection off, they can distribute the
>> broken version. So the DRM has to keep out the *smartest* attackers, not
>> just the average attackers.
> 
> The other reason is that you *must* take the DRM off to use the thing. 
> No matter which way the image data is encrypted, you /must/ decrypt it 
> in order to see it. If you can see it, you can copy it.

Well, that's what makes it possible to break in the first place. But the 
average joe wouldn't know how to rip a blu-ray disk. The problem is that if 
it costs more time and effort to break the DRM than the protected thing is 
worth, it's not worth doing. Nobody is going to spend two days ripping a 
blu-ray disk when you can buy it for $15.  The problem is that someone 
*will* spend two days ripping it (a) just to prove they can and (b) in order 
to give it to thousands of other people.

Nowadays, the video is (in theory) decrypted only inside your monitor, so 
the idea that you have to decrypt it to see it is not as much of a stumbling 
block. People are figuring out ways around that problem, and the battle 
continues.

> About the only thing this potentially doesn't apply to is computer 
> software. (Or anything similarly interactive, I guess.) Even then, if 
> you can somehow pluck the decrypted data out of the computer's memory...

Computer software isn't a whole lot easier to break. Of course, stuff like 
game consoles encrypt the data on disk, but I don't think it's encrypted in 
memory.  (There used to be copy-breaker cards for Apple ][ computers, where 
you'd plug it in, run your game or whatever, and then push the attached 
pushbutton and it would stop the CPU and copy all of RAM into its own RAM, 
so you could then quit the game and write it out to disk, so sure.)

Of course, DRM is only as good as the hardware it's stored in.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message