What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Adam Lambert sings the 2012 theme song, "Time for Miracles" view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - Watch the Adam Lambert music video for the 2012 theme song. See 2012, in theaters Nov 13
81 Comments
- michaelstone, on 10/12/2007, -4/+80Suicide. I've often felt the urge to kill myself becuase I can only burn my songs onto 7 CDs and listen to them on 5 computers.
- zweben, on 10/12/2007, -3/+68The RIAA needs to die.
Soon. - Skrolnik, on 10/12/2007, -5/+48How could it endanger lives? Here's a possible scenario, smithfly114:
Start with a personal computer, and hook it up using distributed control system software to, say, the main process line of your local chemical refinery.
Next, make sure that the engineers who set up the system didn't bother to restrict access to peripherals like the CD-ROM drive on the account that's used for day-to-day operation. Also leave out any restrictions on new software installations, like the installer that runs when a DRM'ed CD is placed in a CD drive that has autorun enabled.
Finally, have some less than responsible chemical plant employee think "Hey, I can listen to my new Sony CD on my Control System workstation!" and stick a CD with a buggy Rootkit of a DRM system into the drive.
In theory, poorly written DRM software could impact the operation of the Control System software, which may mean saftey interlocks don't fire correctly, eventually leading to your next big chemical plant disaster.
Yes, it'd have to be a perfect storm of incompetence, and poor safety discipline on top of buggy DRM code, but even with the unlikelyhood that such a scenario would ever occur, the RIAA insists that removal/disabling of DRM in life-threatening situations should still be treated as breaking the law. - tombomb, on 10/12/2007, -4/+31Amazing. Their stunningly stupid mindset never ceases to amaze me. I mean, why do they want to develop software that can cripple our computer? These people are criminals disguised as a business
- smithfly114, on 10/12/2007, -2/+27Can someone explain to me how it could endanger lives?
- argoff, on 10/12/2007, -1/+24Well, in all fairness, if it's alright for them to endanger our lives for the sake of copyright controlls - does that mean in turn that it's ok for us to endanger their lives to preserve our freedom in the information age? I would be willing to bet that we seriously outnumber them ... just a thought.
- sembetu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20I say we start a not for profit and collectively garner nationwide support for a class action lawsuit against the RIAA and MPAA stating that our basic First Amendment Rights are being infringed upon, and we demand the immediate removal of all DRM on all software, music, and video media. Additionally, we demand that a permanent, non-sunsetable law be passed barring these organizations from seeking to re-enact DRM in the future. Additionally, we demand reconciliation from every organization and media creator who has utilized DRM to invade our privacy and attempt to negate our rights. As a last measure, we would like to see the heads of the organizations found most directly responsible, and any connected personnel impeached and investigated for extortion.
Disclaimer: I just finished seeing V for Vendetta about 20 minutes ago. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17This could VERY simply endanger lives.. heres a rather likely scenario.
Sony Releases version 2 of the their virus cd's, err I mean DRM'd cds
The dispatch officer at your local [police station / firestation / 911 / whatever], decide they want to listen to music while on break. ( most companies allow this ) This computer now has buggy code that is full of security holes. Now.... During the break, they decide to also surf the net, uh oh... a huge hole was found in the drm, that allows execution of code... (just look at the previuse Sony DRM scandel for an example).
Now this computer is infected with a brand new virus, that the anti virus companies don't even know about... it spread like wildfire accross the network... your entire [police station / firestation / 911 / whatever] is now crippled, and unable to properly handle emergencies....
What is scary, is that this entire scenerio is quite possible. - Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18Eventually, the lion shall lie with the lamb, and peace will reign across the land. Until then, lube your anus.
- Vryz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15Example. You played a Sony CD on an important computer and it installed a rootkit as a means of copy protection. This computer has important functions and must remain secure. After seeing news on the rootkit, you decide to remove it. Removing copy protection is illegal under the DMCA. Talking about how to remove copy protection is illegal under the DMCA.
- danl_4, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13This is actually quite insightful. Let's say I create a "Hello World" program and distribute it with "DRM" that actively breaks other vendors' DRM. Now, if their DRM tries to change to circumvent my DRM (because it's breaking theirs), they're actually breaking the DMCA. Now our DRMs are in a Mexican standoff, both violating the DMCA, because they're trying to break each other.
Obviously, this example is a little contrived, and one would have to be very careful in order to get it to work. You probably couldn't make it look like you were deliberately trying to break other companies' DRM. But, if someone were to develop such a thing, working closely with a lawyer, maybe you could distribute it with a handy piece of shareware and start using the DMCA against the people that created it (even though it was technically legislators that enacted the law, I think we all know its true source). - 1911wolf, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17Agreed.
But even so, we all must take personal responsibility and if we ever see an employee of RIAA, we must run them over or make sure they're hit by a car. ;) - retawd, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14Heres an idea... Don't buy Sony CDs. Download it illegally. It's cheap, easy, and there is no way to infect an mp3.
- TheGalacticFork, on 10/12/2007, -7/+18Eventually even the US government will tell the RIAA/MPAA to go ***** itself.
- migel628, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10I meant more of a legal way to fight back, b/c doing nothing and complaining does nothing to help us.
- CraigNobbs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9An open source DRM program should be created that protects the digital rights of the user to which the software is installed, operates, or is removed from their computer. It will give permission to other so-called 'DRM' software and allow the user to enable or disable the other DRM software, although this could NEVER be an advertised feature of the program.
If software such as this DRM program was installed on a PC before any other DRM and the other DRM software bypassed this security to disallow it to fully function, then the DMCA could be used against the offending software's author(s)/distributors for possible criminal and/or civil action.
It would have to be implemented by positioning this software in EVERY single nook and cranny in an OS so as not to leave any means for other software to legally bypass the security. It would not affect any usage of the computer negatively and would be able to be easily repaired or uninstalled if needed/wanted. It would have to be distributed as security software to control access to the entire system, also protecting against (possible malicious) software that could be added to an OS by any means. The user would have complete control over every aspect of the OS and all installed components and would be able to deselect single components or know 'software packages'. An online database of these 'software packages' would contain all possible information about which files are used and how it interacts with the OS, but not discriminate in any way against any of these 'software packages', so that it leaves complete control to the user (local administrator) as to which packages to enable or disable.
Built into the application would be a broad spectrum of security tools, including (but not limited to) a 'rootkit' detection tool that would alert the user to any files or data that may be hidden in such a manner. As part of the database feature, a comprehensive list, updated as needed by the client software, from a server, would be cross-linked reference information as to which 'software packages', if any, the 'rootkit' belonged to, and would allow the user to disable and enable at will, for security reasons that the user decides. It would also have a removal system that would, with interaction from the user, remove selected files, data, or 'software packages'.
This way, this program conforms the Copyright Act chapter 12, paragraph (a)(2)(B) which states:
"(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that—"
"(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; ...".
The main purpose of this security program would be to ensure that the system was completely secured and that the user had complete control over what was to run and what was not. This would ensure that the program conformed to the Copyright Act chapter 12, paragraph (a)(2)(A) which states:
"(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that—"
"(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected".
This is because, although this would be possible with this program, that it is not the primary design function, but a control mechanism to which the user controls.
If it was requested that certain 'software packages' not be allowed to be disabled or removed, then conforming to the Copyright Act chapter 12, paragraph (c)(3) which states:
"(c) Other Rights, Etc., Not Affected.—"
"(3) Nothing in this section shall require that the design of, or design and selection of parts and components for, a consumer electronics, telecommunications, or computing product provide for a response to any particular technological measure, so long as such part or component, or the product in which such part or component is integrated, does not otherwise fall within the prohibitions of subsection (a)(2) or (b)(1).",
the program does not need to have interoperability with any other program or 'software package', which by definition of the Copyright Act chapter 12, paragraph (f)(4):
"(4) For purposes of this subsection, the term 'interoperability' means the ability of computer programs to exchange information, and of such programs mutually to use the information which has been exchanged.".
If the other DRM successfully put itself in front of this security to allow it to capture any API calls or other component access before this, then it would have violated the Copyright Act by means of chapter 12, sections (a) and (b) or section (f), if they reverse engineer the application or it components in an attempt to discover ways to get around it.
If the big corporations want to play this legal game, then perhaps we should stop whining and do something about it. It's first come, first serve. Breaking ANY DRM software package is illegal in the DMCA. That is the point that we beat them at their own game.
----------------------------------
U.S. Copyright Office website (Copyright Law section): http://www.copyright.gov/title17/ - deut, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8@skrolnik
I'm sorry mate, you are talking bollox. I'm a control systems developer and i can categorically state that all safety critical systems (ESDs, interlocks, etc..) are implemented either in hardware (IE, good old fashioned relays and stop buttons), or by using SIL rated industrial PLC / DCS controllers. That's the LAW! - You've never heard of the SIL regulations have you?
Do you think these industries are not regulated? You honestly believe that the plant interlocks for a 600MW boiler are going to be run on a Windows App?
Here are some links so that you can go and educate yourself...
http://www.answers.com/topic/safety-integrity-level
http://www.yokogawa.com/iss/products/iss-en-prosafe-rs-01.htm - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9The RIAA's Founders Parents should've used a Condom.
- roberts3000, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8what if i reload windows to remove DRM software? or do a system restore.
is this now illegal under the DMCA. - Chozabu, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9playing music is not something youd expect to mess up a computer
at worst, the data may be corrupt, and the player will say "corrupt data"
DRM not only make software more complex (and thus more buggy) but a whole bunch of things about its design and state of being make it more buggy
its often added by a third party - may make unexpected changes to orignal code (bugs)
It uses the system in very unexpected ways (altering the operating system, etc) - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9ok, this has gone too far. Wouldn't it be nice if the RIAA would just like ummm don't know how to put this...die
- sinembarg0, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Yes. I say the RIAA (and MPAA for the matter) endanger lives, ex: ruthlessly suing grandparents and single mothers for crimes they didn't commit. Forcing them to settle and have to sell everything they own, thus making it very hard for them to keep a job, and be able to pay for food.
- Nerevar, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7God i hate these money grubbing idiots.
- chaos86, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Why couldnt we do that?
Because in most cases we bought the music and software knowing there was DRM in it (or at least it was there in the fine print we were supposed to read). In the case of Sony, yes, our rights were infringed upon because we didnt know what they were doing to our systems, but we cant go back on the deal we made with iTunes or Adobe when we bought their products and checked the "I agree with the Terms and Conditions" box, just because we changed our minds about those T's and C's.
If you don't like it, don't buy something with DRM. If everyone boycotts DRM'd products, the industry will take notice. - Scourge, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Start massing a huge undercover sniper team
- Zuggy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5In regards to these big companies I can only say one thing.
Never underestimate the power of stupid people with $10,000 an hour bloodsuckers...err...lawyers. - SLIPSTR3AM, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Even more interesting.. why none of this outcry seems to show up on the nightly news. I call shenanigans. It's like none of our cries are doing anything to stop them, or at least give them a wake up call.
- masterofshadows, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@chaos86:
no they will just blame it on "piracy" and use it as an excues to lobby congress for more overly broad laws and taxes on the physical media going to them - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9***** (to the RIAA)
- evizaer, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7I don't think i'm alone when i say that i am literally scared of what might happen because of such foolishness.
I mean, endanger LIVES? How can you argue for something fairly trivial that is already largely hated among the populace that can potentially KILL PEOPLE. Strange and scary - blackbelt88, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3first of all the RIAA has to realize that most people are going to try to circumvent DRM one way or another regardless of the DMCA. Secondly, what does their response to the motion for an exemption say about them? If they don't want us to doubt whether or not their DRM contains security holes and is endangering our computers/lives, don't put the doubt there in the first place by putting rootkits on your CDs! It's their own damn fault.
I can't stand the RIAA and MPAA. The RIAA is the worst. They have handled the digital music revolution so poorly it's not even funny. They refuse to accept the fact that people want to download their content online. If they don't give us a place to do that, they're just asking for piracy. The iTunes music store is a step, but unfortunately you're locked into iPod if you want to take your music with you, plus it's low quality and they still only have about half of the music that I want to listen to (I like 60s and 70s music, I'm not sure how they get the rights to put that stuff online). Furthermore, just last summer they were trying to force Apple to raise prices, and now they stand accused of trying to price fix. They were finally making progress and then they go and try to bite the hand that feeds them, again. The RIAA needs to learn to treat their customers right or just close up shop, because that's what's going to happen to them if they don't stop screwing everyone over. - SirVanderhoot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The point of the question towards the RIAA was that, if in some strange scenario, DRM would need to be removed to save lives, would it be justified. This doesn't have to be likely or ever even have to happen, just would it be acceptable were it to ever happen. And they said no, they would rather have the DRM stay intact than see lives endangered.
- sadsac, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7michaelstone: you're wrong!! Ed Felten is NOT an exaggerating blogger...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Felten - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws" --Martin Luther King Jr.
- leviathan3k, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6I've thought of a more likely scenario. Classified or trade secret data could very likely be protected by DRM. The plans to the aforementioned chemical plant could somehow be DRMed. Whatever software they use to read it could fail for some reason, and, in an inopportune moment, need to be read.
Or, the information to cure someones medical condition could be DRMed, and the proper software/hardware combination might not be available.
Music and movies are not the only things that could have DRM on them. MS and other companies have the goal of being a DRM provider for all sorts of information, and all of it would be affected by this. - OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5http://shadow.yak.net/20.l/DSCN0358.JPG
- ByteGuerilla, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Not even as business. These guys have no reason to exist. Even the record companies they 'represent' don't want them around.
- mikeintosh, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4It saddens me that we have to even read something like this. I mean, really... threaten lives? I know its an overexaggeration, but realistically, we aren't that far off from something like this. Would we have thought 10 years ago that little kids would be getting sued by the US gov for downloading a top 40 hit off the web? I sure as hell wouldn't have. Who's to say what is going to be happening 10 years from now? It's scary to think of the eventual outcomes of this kind of stuff...
- noamsml, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3That's rediculous. Clear and immediate danger for one's life has been considered a full defence for *homocide*, and yet they think they could make it a false defence for *breaking DRM*.
Tough luck, RIAA, no jury in the world would ever convict sombody of that crime. - dasunst3r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I think the RIAA needs to take a government course. There is something called the 5th amendment: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
It is depriving us of (definitely) liberty, (likely) property, and (plausibly) life "without due process" and "without just compensation."
Folks, it's time to take the 2nd against these ungrateful organizations. Until they change their ways, give as little as you possibly can, but do respect the law just to humor them. The arms we bear is in our wallet. - bonoes, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4This is one reason why I don't buy cd's or put DVD's in my pc. I haven't had anything to do with Sony since the movie Snatch came out. I think that's the last time any Sony product has touched my pc. And I've done a format since then. I have only bought probably 10 cd's since 1998.
My sister's Itunes stopped burning music last week. How do I check to see if I have a DRM? I'll kill her if my pc is screwed. - michaelstone, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8Average blog article, blowing things way out of proportion. If you can wade through that overly wordy quote, you'll realize they're not really saying what the headline claims at all.
- knightblade2oo4, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5***** the Copyright Cartel.
- Acill, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If most record and movie houses dont want them arround who in the hell put them in charge of all this in the first place then?
- turbo2ltr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Thats the stupidest thing said in this thread. Sorry. 1: yeah it will be stopped dead.... for about 5 minutes until someone much smarter than me releases a patch to disable it. 2: Why the hell would you even entertain the idea for DRM to be built into an OS??? DRM = BAD.
Don't you see people, it's not that the RIAA doesn't "see" that we want to download music, they are using it as a crowbar. If they "allow" us to download music easily, then they won't have anything to complain about. By NOT providing us with a decent, fair way to download music, they can say "see people are still pirating, we need stricter laws ( so we can make our monopoly even bigger and make more money)".. - DeBurgo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4So, what happens in the case that one company's DRM system impedes another's? What does the law have to say about that?
Since "security" is such a general umbrella (and in many cases can be seen as a form of DRM in of itself) how does the law define what kind of security gets priority over another? - foxhoundadmin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4"Heres an idea... Don't buy Sony CDs. Download it illegally. It's cheap, easy, and there is no way to infect an mp3."
haha! hoora! YES, YES, YES! ffmmma grappba .... i like THAT idea .... ddaabahhhrrrMPHHA! - dwhitbeck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2My computer is my computer, I paid for it. I don't want root kits, DRM or automatic updates any more than I want spam, viruses or spyware.
- ArchonSG, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Just stop buying music from retail channels period.
There is no reason at this point to buy any CD release , and until everyone actually realize that almost every album being put out is just one or two good song padded with crap, which by the way you are made to pay for, the RIAA will still make billions, your billions of dollars that you willingly gave to them to use to screw you over.
As long as people continue to be dumb sheep and pay for rip offs like that and think they are getting "good value", the RIAA will continue to be able to fund own agenda. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Hey!! Dont forget!! ***** the BSA too!!
-
Show 51 - 81 of 81 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 