ActiveWin.com - The Most Activated Windows Resource

ActiveWin

User Controls

New User

Edit/View My Profile

Active Network

ActiveMac

ActiveWin

ActiveXbox

DirectX

Downloads

FAQs

Interviews

MS Games & Hardware

Reviews

Rocky Bytes

Support Center

TopTechTips

Windows 2000

Windows Me

Windows Server 2003

Windows Vista

Windows XP

News Centers

Windows/Microsoft

Apple/Mac

Xbox/Xbox 360

News Search

XML/RSS Newsfeeds

Pocket PC Site

FAQ's

Windows Vista

Windows 98/98 SE

Windows 2000

Windows Me

Windows Server 2003

Windows XP

Windows 7

Windows 8

Internet Explorer 6

Internet Explorer 5

Xbox 360

Xbox

DirectX

DVD's

Latest Reviews

Xbox/Games

Fable 2

Applications

Windows Server 2008 R2

Windows 7

Adobe CS5 Master Collection

Hardware

Microsoft Express Mouse

Latest Interviews

Mike Swanson

Site News/Info

About This Site

Advertise

Affiliates

Default Home Page

Link To Us

Busting the FUD about Vista’s DRM

Time: 10:34 EST/15:34 GMT | News Source: ZDNet | Posted By: Robert Stein

Is it bad reporting, bad research, or something worse? That’s the question I asked myself when I read this NetworkWorld account of Peter Gutmann’s presentation at the Usenix Security Symposium last week. Gutmann is a researcher in the Department of Computer Science at the University of Auckland in New Zealand who specializes in encryption (on his home page, he describes himself as a Professional Paranoid). Gutmann generated a lot of heat last December with the publication of a paper that called Windows Vista’s Content Protection scheme “the longest suicide note in history.” He updated it in April, mostly to call his critics names, and he updated it yet again yesterday with a top-of-the-page slam at my ZDNet colleague George Ou, who took exception with some of Gutmann’s claims yesterday (see Claim that Vista DRM causes full CPU load and global warming debunked!).

Read Only Comments
Return to News

Displaying Comments 1 through 42 of 42

This is an archived static copy of ActiveWin.com.

#1 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at Tuesday, August 14, 2007 11:08:40 AM

"Thank you, Ed Bott!"

There is a side story here that is perhaps more troubling than the porous stuff held out as fact by Peter Gutmann... leading personalities like Leo Laporte and Paul Thurrott shared this story on Twit.tv's Windows Weekly. Ok, fine... but in Leo's case he shared it in a way that supported Gutmann's findings - and Leo is plenty smart enough to do that ever so subtly. Fine and dandy - Leo is no friend of Microsoft and no one expects him to be and he's still funny and frankly, fun to listen to and he makes no bones about being a card-carrying Mac-Tard to the nth order of nerd magnitude. He is what he is and I like him - in that, Gawd I hate your sorry backside sort of way [all entirely harmless, of course].

Paul, relatively new to the show at the time, bugs the piss out of me - he's actually better at all things computer than his work reflects and the fact that he didn't refute what Gutmann was asserting with great energy is a reflection of what he didn't do [test] as much as much as it is of what he did do [defer in an unnecessary and cheesy effort to sustain street cred where none and I mean, zip, exists, or needs to...]. He's got to be the least hard working guy in technical showbiz and with the potential he has to really nail it, it disappoints that he doesn't.
Paul, God gave you a lot man, do a lot with it!

Back to my beef [or explaining it as it were...] WAAAYYYY TOOO MUCH FUD has been dropped on Windows Vista. It is nothing short of ridiculous. Those of us that have not just used it, but build on and for it, know what it is and what it can do - and it for certain can kick some mean Hi-Def content. Visually, Vista is nothing short of stunning and one may access HD/BD content as part of the larger PC experience for very little cash and with great ease. That is the truth and even year one techs can get it right each and every time. Oh, and as an HD/BD player, Vista PC's smoke and I mean SMOKE, any and all comers when it comes to usability. Waking a Vista box from the new sleep state and into a Hi-Def movie takes seconds, only - try that on any HD, or BD player?!?!? - they take what seems to be a freaking month to even start.

On a more serious note.... personalities like Leo and Paul have a real responsibility to report "all" that surfaces... BUT... they also have a responsibility [especially to less seasoned users], to get it right. They don't in a lot of cases and that's fine, too - so long as they brand "Windows Weekly" honestly and its name reflects what appears to be Leo's position as an MS and Vista detractor - calling it "We don't actually use Windows Weekly and neither should you" or as AWBrian puts it, "Apple MAC, OS X, iPhone, Safari FTW Weekly"

Oh, Paul, wipe your chin man, you're drooling on your iPhone again...

#2 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at Tuesday, August 14, 2007 12:11:34 PM

#1: Funny you should mention HD. I've been reading that Vista will downsample any HD playback unless its through the secure path. Supposedly, if you don't have a full HDMI or HDCP (or whatever it's called) rig end to end, your own HD home movies will also be downsampled and look terrible. Truth or FUD?

btw it is entertaining to watch the MS spinners complain about Vista being the target of FUD. The rest of us have had to put up with FUD from MS for a lonnnnnnnng time now. You know what they say about sauce for the goose...

#3 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at Tuesday, August 14, 2007 12:26:35 PM

#2, Complete and utter FUD - you read the article, right? and also Gutmann's material??

No, it will not down-sample content. Commerical content does not yet feature the tokens that would fire the protection mechanisms that would require an HDCP compliant vido card - now selling nearly universally for as little as 50 bucks and also standard on most HDTV's since November 2005.

I guess not - just as I am sure you have not actually used Windows Vista long enough to test and enjoy HD content - locally produced or otherwise.

Is it FUD to ask you to show me the sub-$700.00 *nix, or Mac box that can play HD?

#4 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at Tuesday, August 14, 2007 12:46:57 PM

#3: Complete and utter FUD - you read the article, right? and also Gutmann's material??

I didn't read today's rehash of yesterday's news, and I didn't read the Guttman article in its entirety. I have only a marginal interest in this.

Is it FUD to ask you to show me the sub-$700.00 *nix, or Mac box that can play HD?

Of course it's not FUD unless you've taken the Microsoft tack of redefining terms to suit your use. Besides, it's an irrelevant question. There could be zero or 10,000 of them and I wouldn't know. I could count on one hand the number of movies I've watched on DVD in the past 5 years.

#5 By 7754 (206.169.247.2) at Tuesday, August 14, 2007 01:40:37 PM

I have only a marginal interest in this.

Except for freely requoting it/accepting it more or less as fact, accurate or not.

#6 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at Tuesday, August 14, 2007 02:53:40 PM

#5: You say that like it's a negative. Do you hold me to a higher standard than yourself and the rest of humanity? You do not "know" most of what you know, as you are unable to prove it yourself. Therefore, most of your knowledge is generally accepted fact mixed in with opinion, hearsay, etc. Here we have a paper from a university professor (and not just some random blogger). I have no experience with HD/BD-DVD on Vista, so I have no practical way of verifying his claims and will take his opinion at face value. When facts (and not angry shouting from noted Windows supporters) emerge that dispute his position, I will re-evaluate my opinion. Right now we're at the stage where there is more shouting than facts. For me it's moot as I'll never be watching HD-DVD on a Vista PC.

#7 By 1896 (68.153.171.248) at Tuesday, August 14, 2007 03:15:25 PM

I am not getting in the debate because personally I boycott both HD-DVD and BluRay; the reason behind this is that both formats are DRMed in an unacceptable way.
Other than that I can confirm, based on the limited amount of testing I did when I was Beta testing Vista what what #3 stated:
At the moment, and I would like to emphasize "at the moment" Movies Companies have not YET implemented the policies which would downgrade the quality of the shows.
Said that I am ready to bet that if and when one of these two formats will become popular the protection mechanism will be implemented.
Personally I do not like the idea to have a "Damocle' sword" hanging over my head so I just bought a new "Upsampling" DVD player and, honestly, the difference with a HD DVD or a BluRay is very slim.
The next format I will embrace will be the one that allow me to store the movies I buy in my server and stream them in as many TV sets I have in my house.

#8 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at Tuesday, August 14, 2007 03:39:41 PM

#7: I wondered if this was the game. We've all seen it before... "Well, technically this feature/policy could be used for bad stuff against you, but trust us it would never, ever happen..." and the second you accept, the thing that will never, ever happen happens. I think it's called the thin end of the wedge. For a fine example of how this works, see the PATRIOT Act and warrantless wiretapping.

The next format I will embrace will be the one that allow me to store the movies I buy in my server and stream them in as many TV sets I have in my house.

I wonder if that format will ever exist legally. Big media does NOT want to lose control even after the sale. I can't see the day when the dominant media is not DRMed up the ying-yang.

#9 By 32132 (142.32.208.232) at Tuesday, August 14, 2007 05:17:58 PM

"Google contacted customers late last week to tell them that the video store was closing. The e-mail declared, "In an effort to improve all Google services, we will no longer offer the ability to buy or rent videos for download from Google Video, ending the DTO/DTR (download-to-own/rent) program. This change will be effective August 15, 2007."

The message also announced that Google Checkout would issue credits in an amount equal to what those customers had spent at the Google Video store. Why the quasi-refunds? The kicker: "After August 15, 2007, you will no longer be able to view your purchased or rented videos."

See, after Google takes its video store down, its Internet-based DRM system will no longer function. This means that customers who have built video collections with Google Video offerings will find that their purchases no longer work. "

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070812-google-selleth-then-taketh-away-proving-the-need-for-drm-circumvention.html

And people want Google to hold onto their data for them!

#10 By 7754 (206.169.247.2) at Tuesday, August 14, 2007 05:51:21 PM

#6--that would be a fair point, except that this very article is refutation, right here for you to read... along with Ou's article (linked), which has plenty more than Gutmann's simple theory and conjecture... along with lketchum's detailed (very!) posts describing otherwise. So... after plenty of time to "re-evaluate," which do you choose to quote? Though refuted with hard evidence, you still choose the theory and speculation... that fits with your agenda.

#11 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at Tuesday, August 14, 2007 07:00:44 PM

#8, Okay, so it is all a form of entertainment for you. Cool. I get it and will play.

So you basically know squat, based upon squat, but hey, you're paid by someone to dribble any way - so may as well be opposite people that do build things - including compliant systems capable of supporting any form of HD content. No problem.

Where I do have a problem is in the comparison with the Patriot Act and "warrantless wire-taps" - First, the "collection" is by law, and subject to laws, governing regulations and directives and very healthy oversight. Most importantly is the fact that neither the act, or actions under it are about "wire-taps" at all! You idiots [and this time I really do offer that as a description and maintain that it is accurate], continually use the name "wire tap" as though a physical serial, or parallel tap were placed on a telephonic device - it isn't - so pay attention, IDIOT, the collection DOES NOT involve taps of wired telephony and the freaking reason the act's structure provides for more flexibility is that unlike a hard line, the target's emitter and properties are not fully known BEFORE the bad guys make commo - so one has to direct collection differently. So kindly stop with the "wire tap" BS - the truth is it is quite easy to isolate desired targets from innocent communications and that is what the directives and oversight provide for. The DRM is about adhering to terms and protecting content - from thieves. Microsoft, Vista and many partners are about adhering to the rules and standards so people can enjoy HD content. You're about obfuscating the truth and hell bent on enslaving tax payers to fund your social agenda. What is it man, the AC out in Mom's basement this summer, or are you pissed that imagery on a *nix looks like ass?

#12 By 15406 (74.104.251.89) at Tuesday, August 14, 2007 07:33:51 PM

#10: I have a prof on one side, and 3 guys (2 of whom are Microbots) saying otherwise so I'm still lacking required confirmation. I was talking to a colleague about this and he proposed a scenario where everyone was right. Gutmann's work was all admittedly theoretical and he even said that he didn't have Vista to try it on. The guys with Vista say it doesn't work that way in practice. My colleague thought that perhaps this DRM system is fully implemented in Vista, but not activated for whatever reason. So, theoretically, the down-sampling code could muck with your home HD, but currently doesn't and likely won't. But with one update, the switch can be flipped. I don't know if this is even close to reality, but it could explain everything neatly.

#11: You really get in a huff when anyone attacks your precious Republicans. Bush can always make anything he does legal by backdating a new law or by brushing it off with an absurd executive privilege declaration.

#13 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at Tuesday, August 14, 2007 08:20:54 PM

#11, I get worked up when people attack the truth - especially about that which is truly noble - and beleive it or not, the people working in collection are true knights - they'd rather die [and do] than harm even the spirit of the law - much less a US Person [one needn't even be a citizen in order to be protected]. It isn't an issue of "party" - these are fundamental issues of right and wrong and the "property" that underwrites individual liberty. Respecting that right is a two sided coin - respect others and they will respect yours. You seem to want a world that provides that only the state has the right to own anything at all - and that results in bad things - like slaves, bad teeth, bad housing and cars made of pressed paper...oh and a whole lot of premature death. You want that? Head on outta here and for the nearest socialist state you can find - just don't count on many of us to follow... and do count on us racking as many rounds as it takes to continue to defend what we built [the best chance for individual liberty there is]. DRM, as much of a pain in the neck as it is, must exist to protect property. Vista simply is extended in ways to allow those of us that love HD movies and content to enjoy it on, or from a PC.

#14 By 135 (75.73.90.215) at Tuesday, August 14, 2007 08:52:08 PM

You seem to want a world that provides that only the state has the right to own anything at all - and that results in bad things - like slaves, bad teeth, bad housing and cars made of pressed paper...oh and a whole lot of premature death.

Man, that sounds a lot like Alabama.

DRM, as much of a pain in the neck as it is, must exist to protect property. Vista simply is extended in ways to allow those of us that love HD movies and content to enjoy it on, or from a PC.

You miss one important part of Capitalism.

I don't have to buy your crap.

#15 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at Tuesday, August 14, 2007 09:00:47 PM

#14, Funny... of perhaps 160 years ago - today, I don't think they'd let you past the gate at the head of our community, and we're not keen on handing out the code.

Oh no.... not missed at all and that is part of it... many products fail under our system, as you surely know - and good ones that succeed replace them.

Under a socialist system, bad products succeed every time - there is nothing else to buy and people buy what exists [not that much does].

#16 By 48398 (130.13.158.96) at Tuesday, August 14, 2007 09:49:22 PM

Also, there's the broadcast flag in Media Center. It exists to limit the portability and life of DVR-MS files. Although it's there, broadcasters haven't yet used it. Just like HDCP.

I can only hope that everybody who crys foul about DRM starts purchasing DRM-Free music from iTunes and Amazon to send the message. Otherwise, we'll never see an end to this bullcorn.

#17 By 12071 (203.185.215.144) at Tuesday, August 14, 2007 10:20:38 PM

Woohoo, it's the socialist scare tactic thread! Where are all the communist comments? Come on! Flame on! If only those damn socialists could have decent healthcare systems and cars... hmmm. Tell me lketchum, since you're obviously not a hypocrite in any sense of the word, how do you get your mail? It wouldn't be through that socialist postal service would it? What about the socialist police and fire services? Why is ok to have a socialist service that look after your safety (i.e. police and fire) but not your wellbeing (i.e. healthcare)?

"DRM, as much of a pain in the neck as it is, must exist to protect property."
Bullshit! It never was required and it isn't required now unless you choose it to be. If you want to be shackled down with someone else telling you what you can and cannot do (hmm... what does that sound like boys and girls?) then that's fine, but back the hell off before you try and force your "utopia" on us!

#7 "The next format I will embrace will be the one that allow me to store the movies I buy in my server and stream them in as many TV sets I have in my house."
And there's the voice of a sane individual who is not willing to sacrifice his freedoms to make people like lketchum and the **AA take control.

#18 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at Tuesday, August 14, 2007 11:46:22 PM

#17, Sure, so long as they are really tiny and under the direct control [as in they can be fired] of really small local government, or as in the case of our state police and FBI, their charters a re very limited and they can only police very specific crimes - you know, like we have it here where there is not yet a socialist state. Where there is a national police and fire service there is the chance of abuse that cannot be controlled easily. Where such is kept small, the people closest to the service are in charge and they pay according to their needs and priorities. Do you see the difference? It is very real and very important. Healtcare - are you kidding? Chris, "I" fully fund 100% of my employees healthcare - I even pay the tax on the benefit for them. They pay zip - and out of cash, I pay any co-pays, or out of pocket expenses. That is one way I can compete with others who would try and hire my guys away. While imperfect, I do assess a competitive system provides the incentives to assure excellence. You think there are not private fee based hospitals in the EU, Canada, AU, NZ??? There sure are and you can bet that is where I would go.

If you don't like DRM downloads, then buy the CD and rip away. Same drill for ripping DVD's to a server - specialty servers do exist and a DVD takes 20 minutes to burn to a whole house system. Can't afford that, buy or rent the thing. You can also buy DRM free DL's but what happens when there is no money left at all and no one produces new material? Also, are we to take the locks off our doors [I remember when doors had none - criminals changed that for all of us]? Are we not to protect our land and property? Where does it stop? I disagree, content owners have a right to protect their property and they should do so.

#19 By 12071 (203.158.39.235) at Wednesday, August 15, 2007 04:10:25 AM

#18 "Sure, so long as they are really tiny and under the direct control [as in they can be fired] of really small local government"
So in that case you're against the US Postal Service, which definitely does not fall into that category and is a very socialistic system indeed?

"Healtcare - are you kidding?"
I would never kid about healthcare - it's a very important topic.

"I fully fund 100% of my employees healthcare"
That's wonderful, good on you, I'm sure your employees are very grateful for it. But it's completely and utterly irrelevant to the current discussion. It does not change the state of affairs as they relate to healthcare in America. i.e. That it needs to be paid for - your employees will need to pay for it themselves once they leave your organization. And if anyone should challenge that notion, that "awful" word "socialism" is thrown around by people like you to stir up emotion even though you're more than happy with your current socialist postal, police and fire services! Funny that! Which is what led to me saying "Why is ok to have a socialist service that look after your safety (i.e. police and fire) but not your wellbeing (i.e. healthcare)?" which you didn't quite understand. So once again, if a socialistic practice is such a BAD thing, then why are people like you being hypocrites about it and accepting it in some cases but not others? Is a person's well being not important? Or is it only as important as the amount of money they are able to pay?

"While imperfect, I do assess a competitive system provides the incentives to assure excellence"
As oppose to a socialist system which doesn't assure excellence? right...

"You think there are not private fee based hospitals in the EU, Canada, AU, NZ??? There sure are and you can bet that is where I would go."
Of course there are! They all provide private health insurance for those that can afford it or wish to have it. But here's the bit you missed out which is quite deceptive of you... they provide that private health insurance ON TOP OF the universal health care system in place to allow EVERYONE to get treated. In much the same way that all those people get the mail delivered to them, and protected by the police and fire services - i.e. through taxes. So all of those countries you mentioned are leaps and bounds ahead of America as they provide everything America does as well as the universal health care system to allow everyone, rich or poor, to receive medical treatment when required, without you having to spend money to purchase it on behalf of all of your employees.

"If you don't like DRM downloads, then .... rip away."
I don't want to purchase something, then spend time ripping it to get the right to play the damn thing. And in many cases, the ripping itself is illegal as a key needs to be provided to be able to access said DRM material - whether or not "fair use" plays a part is a gray line. But as I said before... if your "utopia" is the enslavement of end users (i.e. the customers) via DRM then all the best to you. Just don't expect the rest of us to follow suit as we'd like to hang onto our freedoms. For someone preaching about freedoms and liberties with such patriotism, you sure are happy to throw those away very quickly with ridiculous arguments such as piracy! DRM has got very little to do with piracy and a lot more to do with control if you really took a good look at it. The only reason the word piracy is thrown around is, once again, to stir up emotion, because we all know that piracy is bad!

#20 By 12071 (203.158.39.235) at Wednesday, August 15, 2007 04:10:47 AM

#18 "Are we not to protect our land and property?"
Is this supposed to be some stupid analogy on your part? Get the analogy right at least. DRM is like you selling me land and property whereby you continue to dictate to me what I can do with said land and property. Oh you can't knock down that house and build another sorry. Oh and don't try and see how the pipes are connected, that will come under reverse-engineering which is a no no!

"I disagree, content owners have a right to protect their property and they should do so."
And consumers have rights too - rights to do reasonable things with the items they have purchased. If I want to view the movie I just purchased on my non-HDCP compliant monitor then it is of no consequence to the content owner. I'm not willing to be a slave to their every beck and call.

#21 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at Wednesday, August 15, 2007 08:35:06 AM

Lloyd, I'm afraid Kubuki has defeated you on two levels: he has won the argument and quite possibly beat your record for longest single post!

Seriously, DRM is not concerned about the artist's creation. It's about corporate fat-cats continuing to pad their pockets on the backs of artists.

#22 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at Wednesday, August 15, 2007 08:53:28 AM

Under a socialist system, bad products succeed every time - there is nothing else to buy and people buy what exists [not that much does].

Also true of a statist economy, like you keep supporting.

Anyway, the crack about the gated community was telling. Up here us yanks consider those un-American.

#23 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at Wednesday, August 15, 2007 08:54:45 AM

#20 I'm not willing to be a slave to their every beck and call.

But being against slavery is anti-business! What are you some kind of communist!?

This post was edited by sodablue on Wednesday, August 15, 2007 at 08:55.

#24 By 37 (76.210.78.134) at Wednesday, August 15, 2007 09:23:46 AM

I would have to say that Lloyd actually won that debate hands down. DRM is also protecting the artists.

#25 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at Wednesday, August 15, 2007 10:12:24 AM

#18: 0wned

#24: Don't kid yourself. DRM doesn't protect anything. DRM has yet to stop any of the well-organized Chinese factory pirates and it can't stop granny from ripping her CD and DVDs. DRM is defective by design. Any DRM scheme will always be cracked. As for the artists, they're getting screwed more by the labels than from any losses due to copying. You should read some of the essays by Steve Vai, Joan Baez, Courtney Love and others. They'll be happy to tell you about how piracy doesn't affect them much compared to the reaming they get from the record companies.

#26 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at Wednesday, August 15, 2007 10:21:21 AM

Uhh... the US postal system is a privatized organization and subject to intense competition... stamps, or "Franking" increase in price all the time. The government's role is to "protect" the passage of mails and control "Franking Privileges" only - ya'll recall when many of our congress people and senators abused that and traded stamps for cash - Sen. John Glenn was given a pass... [Dem Ohio], and in the US we for certain have public healthcare - medicare and medicaid which provide access to our private healthcare system - paid by taxes and outrageous premiums, which go up each and every year. reform is needed but that reform has to include some serious butt kicking - to get all able bodied people off their backsides and into some kind of work. We're all waayyy off topic here - which is what makes Awin so great - we do that all the time. Chris K and I are never going to agree on these issues - no more than our host nations have in the past. There are some telling points about that subject and his story is a compelling one - which by the way, I still owe him an apology - "I am most sincerely sorry to have offended you, Chirs - you were way too young to have done much about what went down in your home country and I did not know that part." Just know that a lot of us tried real hard to help - and many gave all in order to do it.

Any case, I can tell ya'll this much and this much only - socialism does not work, because humans are involved and it ends up hurting a lot of poeople. Capitalism is far from perfect, but it does hold out that individuals and their right to own and dispose of property is central to being free. Respecting that right is what is at the center of this debate - and one's right to protect that property. Recorded media was perhaps the first form of widely distributed "Software" and now, with the technological means to allow any of us to distribute it, the protections have evolved and that treads on fair use in a lot of cases - it's imperfect, but it is where we are. There is little doubt about what would happen without DRM - about every kid with an MP3 player and a computer would steal, AGAIN. That is how we ended up in this mess - the same way it went when we had to add locks to our doors and began locking our cars. I recall a time when we did not do that at all. Without DRM and the means to manage fair use, what is the solution? No DRM = no incentive and I have seen that, too - people without any will, or incentive. It results in mass poverty, war and the terrible conditions that caused people like Chris to have to move elsewhere - and the same was true of our ancenstors. So we have what we built here - an imperfect place that appears wild and unforgiving to many. I see it as a place that improves all the time and still provides the best chance for all to find happiness and prosperity - as individuals held together by a very few shared ideals that are worth protecting.

#27 By 13030 (198.22.121.110) at Wednesday, August 15, 2007 11:12:47 AM

The fundamental difference between people like lketchum (and including myself) versus the socialism advocates here is the concept of being able to choose one's own destiny without the government moderating and commoditizing all services. Redistribution of wealth only encourages mediocrity. The greater the scope that the wealth is redistributed, the less the impact is seen by any one individual on a daily basis. Interestingly, these are the very issues that the Constitutional Convention dealt with over 200 years ago. What resulted from that very enlightened group of men was a system that has endured--a balance between personal liberties, the rights of states, and the responsibilities of the national government.

I have a feeling (could be wrong, but I doubt it) that lketchum and I share a common background--we started with nothing, but we worked hard, with dedication and pride, to earn everything we have. We are generous to those that are also willing to work hard. Interestingly, my younger brothers, who do not share my same work ethic and reputation, are socialists (seriously). Coincidence? I think not. I have found many times over that many people are drawn to socialism because it advocates the easy path and caters to their sense of "talking a lot" but not really having to "build" anything by oneself--in other words it makes them feeling good about their social responsibility. The Hollywood culture has more than its fair share of these "big talkers".

Back to the DRM topic. DRM is a protectionist mechanism. It's purpose is to protect a corporate revenue stream, not to protect an artist's creation. (Actually, if you really think about "art" and what it means to a culture, DRM seems to be the antithesis.)

#28 By 37 (76.210.78.134) at Wednesday, August 15, 2007 11:33:11 AM

I am confident that not every artist feels that way (I know Jon Bon Jovi is one off the top of my head). Secondly, why not just put all music up on the internet, free to download, and be on a donation,honor based system?

#29 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at Wednesday, August 15, 2007 12:01:17 PM

#27 You are exactly correct. We each sign the front sides of checks and are happy to do it - I bet you focus on the people and the mission first, too! I also bet you get "hit" often, as in many times a day, by people wanting things from you - that have either made terrible decisions, or simply want an easy way out of a mess they have created.

Also, extremely well said about our founders and their wisdom - thanks for posting that!

#30 By 32132 (142.32.208.232) at Wednesday, August 15, 2007 12:16:52 PM

#25 "Any DRM scheme will always be cracked."

And currency can be counterfeited. And locks can be picked. So?

#32 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at Wednesday, August 15, 2007 02:23:31 PM

Many here are confused. The reasonable attacks on DRM are not saying all music should be free. It may suit your argument to create such a strawman, but it's irresponsible and moronic in the long run.

They are saying, that if I pay for a song... i ought to be able to listen to it. If your little music company goes under and shuts down it's DRM server, i'm screwed. If my device dies, that your song was linked to, I'm screwed. This is why DivX died, and it's a very reasonable concern. Consumers don't want that. They want something that's easy to use, and doesn't get in their ways. Nobody is denying that artists shouldn't have a right to make money.

As I said, the simple fact of the matter is... I don't have to buy your shit. I don't care how much money you think you ought to make, if I don't want to give you my money you don't get it.

Apple has done a reasonable job with iTunes to make the DRM fairly transparent, and unintrusive. Others have not and then complain endlessly when people don't use their stuff.

The complaints mostly center around how corporations are working to try to force consumers to pay for stuff, even though the consumer has no interest or want for it. I'm not talking about pirates. I'm talking about reasonable people such as myself, who have no interest in buying music online.

(Or video... or whatever.)

#33 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at Wednesday, August 15, 2007 02:26:50 PM

#27 - I have a feeling (could be wrong, but I doubt it) that lketchum and I share a common background--we started with nothing, but we worked hard, with dedication and pride, to earn everything we have. We are generous to those that are also willing to work hard. Interestingly, my younger brothers, who do not share my same work ethic and reputation, are socialists (seriously).

Something I've learned over the years... The definition of socialist used by many appears to refer to consumers demanding substance for their dollar.

That's not being a socialist. It's being a capitalist.

What you are is a statist, demanding Government control of markets, to prevent consumers from demanding what they want.

#34 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at Wednesday, August 15, 2007 03:26:31 PM

#33, What?!? Huh?!? and Nah!

"concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government." That is what a statist asserts - hardly what we're saying.

Those most vigorously opposed to statism [historically] are economic liberals - whom have forgotten that central to that economic ideology is logic based upon "Private property and individual contracts forming the basis of the liberal theory of economics." - adding that under such systems, self-interest alone was enough to secure people and property - which was largely true until about 1966. After that neosocialists hit the streets instead of the books.

If you're trying to draw a line between laws passed to recognize digital property as property and the protection thereof and statism, there just isn't one... digital property is real - as real as any property one may own, sell, rent or otherwise dispose of.

While I may be assuming for him, CH and I both assert that liberals cannot have it both ways - you cannot have controls where and to the degree that many appear to want them and one cannot have complete anarchy, either - hence his reference to the balance our founders so wisely sought. What we are seeing is "Sefl-Interest" out of control and that is the problem - people want what they have not earned [yet] in so many cases. 20 years olds want to be elevated to where mom and dad are - and right damned now and it "ain't fair" etc...

Rather than seeing independence, self-reliance and individual achievement as being WORTH the hard tough years it takes to make it on your own, they want to stay where it is fat, safe and cushed up, or they're willing to live so far below what their potential could provide for - so long as the Internet and MP3's are free - or at least easily stolen. Of course there are great young folks, too, but they are really hard to spot these days.

#35 By 13030 (198.22.121.110) at Wednesday, August 15, 2007 04:26:51 PM

#33, What you are is a statist, demanding Government control of markets, to prevent consumers from demanding what they want.

This may very well be the first time in my life that someone has referred to me as a "statist". To the contrary, I've always advocated less government involvement and fewer laws and regulations.

The definition of socialist used by many appears to refer to consumers demanding substance for their dollar.

That would be the "Millionaire Next Door", not a socialist.

Consumers can demand all they want and I think that is just one of the many reasons that the United States is the greatest nation in human history.

#34, ...digital property is real - as real as any property one may own, sell, rent or otherwise dispose of.

True in spirit, but legislatures, courts, and the patent office are all still struggling with this. To be clear, I believe in the protection of one's property and the right to create and distribute as desired. However, I oppose DRM because it places more controls on legitimate use than it prevents unauthorized use. I believe in living my life in such a way that no one could ever say that I was a crook, thief, cheater, adulterer, and so forth. I want to be the best example for my kids possible. I hope that others would too, but, obviously, they don't because we seem to need things like DRM.

I find it interesting and troubling that so many young people (and I'm not that old) find nothing wrong with pirating music, videos, and software off the web.

#36 By 13030 (198.22.121.110) at Wednesday, August 15, 2007 04:39:16 PM

#34, While I may be assuming for him, CH and I both assert that liberals cannot have it both ways...

Assuming for me, but still right on. I'm reading a biography about Ben Franklin and another one about LBJ, so this stuff about rights and liberals is bouncing around in my head.

#37 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at Wednesday, August 15, 2007 06:29:29 PM

#35, Your thoughts are right on with how properly upset truly free thinking people are.
For example, I hate DRM - well and truly and I go on about how big of a pain in the backside it is at every opportunity - but I add to those complaints why it is there - for the same reasons we had to add locks to our homes, cars and lockers - speaking of which, when I first went to school, no one had a locker - they were not needed and get this, boys carried guns to school each and evey day! We hunted to school and on our way home, too - one had to! To eat!
No one was every shot and no one ever dared "Brandish" a weapon in any way and no one was afraid, either.

You are right to hold the position that you do - that DRM is just awful, but what brought DRM on is much worse and globally, it is just primitive. I mean, in many place in central asia there have never been any protections of any kind and stealing recorded content on albums and tape and then CDROM is/was a business - for decades.

Truly, I ache for that time when five year olds walked miles to school and there were no locks at all. People didn't steal and they didn't hate one another and when a fellow was sick you cared for him and later he cared for you. It all changed when people started looking to the Govt. for solutions - it was never enough and they all wanted more, more more. Everyone wanted a free ride. I have watched it three times now in my lifetime and only the first group walked up the the aid window demanding to be allowed to pay any aid back and some of us never took any in the first place. We hunted, fished, grew and canned food and we fought and fought some more. If no one stole we'd need no DRM and if no one stole we'd need no locks. I cussed like a dog the day we added them to our first home - I remember that day and I was mad beyond words.

#38 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at Thursday, August 16, 2007 08:40:38 AM

#5 - This may very well be the first time in my life that someone has referred to me as a "statist". To the contrary, I've always advocated less government involvement and fewer laws and regulations.

Isn't a government mandate requiring all televisions and displays to be DRM enabled the very definition of a statist?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast_flag

#39 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at Thursday, August 16, 2007 08:51:31 AM

#37 - You are right to hold the position that you do - that DRM is just awful, but what brought DRM on is much worse and globally, it is just primitive.

The inability for companies to adapt to a changing marketplace?

Ever noticed how Sony started going downhill in terms of creating electronics equipment when they bought Columbia? Now all of their hardware is all about protecting the Columbia jewels.

Today there's no way Sony would ever introduce a Walkman, or a CD player, or even Beta video. The pencil pushers would tell the engineers "No way! We can't control it! It'll be mass confusion!"

Convergence killed the marketplace of ideas.

#40 By 13030 (198.22.121.110) at Thursday, August 16, 2007 09:23:35 AM

soda, earlier in this thread I thought you got the wrong post number, but now I realize you have me confused with someone else. I have always been against DRM. In general, I find corporate-driven government mandates disguised as consumer protections to be reprehensible.

lketchum, I find myself to be nostalgic too. The long days of childhood wanderlust seem to be drifting away.

I agree that our schools have seen radical changes--I didn't have a locker until 9th grade, my junior high and high school campuses were completely open, there was no security or cops at school, and zero-tolerance did not exist.

DRM is just another (lame) control that has been instituted due to our culture's inability to exercise proper judgment and respect for one another.

#41 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at Thursday, August 16, 2007 10:03:26 AM

#40 - I have always been against DRM. In general, I find corporate-driven government mandates disguised as consumer protections to be reprehensible.

Ah ha! Welcome to the club. Now get down off the ledge, and stop calling consumers opposed to ridiculous controls commies.

The long days of childhood wanderlust seem to be drifting away.

Yeah, mommy is no longer feeding you. Time to realize the world is a harsh mistress and always has been. The world you dream of never existed.

DRM is just another (lame) control that has been instituted due to our culture's inability to exercise proper judgment and respect for one another.

More like another tool imposed to squeeze that last 5% of profit out of the consumer.

Seriously, you guys need to get out more. I come back to AW after a couple of years, and the place has been overrun by diaper wearing cowards. Was it always like this? Was I as bad as you guys. I'm wondering... maybe. God, that makes me sad.

#42 By 32132 (142.32.208.232) at Thursday, August 16, 2007 02:05:07 PM

"the place has been overrun by diaper wearing cowards."

Latch, sodablue has hacked your webcam ... FYI.

replica watches