What is Digg?120 Comments
- Frost9999, on 10/11/2007, -3/+248@wild - DRM doesn't really affect all the downloaders. It only affects people who buy the media that has DRM. See the problem?
- carmaa, on 10/11/2007, -7/+199Ah, will these AACS fools ever learn? It's like watching a bad horror movie where the stupid main character makes all the wrong moves and ends up getting slashed. DRM FTL!
- ElbridgeGerry, on 10/11/2007, -3/+184@wild
I'm not a pirate, and I'd like to be able to play my music and movies wherever I want. - Tippis, on 10/11/2007, -3/+135@ frost9999
"DRM doesn't really affect all the downloaders. It only affects people who buy the media that has DRM. See the problem?"
Wish I could dig you a couple hundred more times. What I don't understand is why this ridiculously simple fact is lost to so many:
Downloaders are not affected by DRM - what they download has no DRM on it.
Rippers are not affected by DRM - their tools strip it automatically.
DRM toolmakers *LOVE* DRM - it feeds their hobby and gives them an intellectual challenge, making their life more fun.
Mr. George R. Legal, the poor shmuck who goes to the store to pick up a new movie, and who then has to jump through hoops to get it to play and who is constantly inconvenienced with the "must play" warnings and anti-piracy infoganda is *the only one* who is affected by DRM. (And don't even get me started on the idiocy of forcing people *who have already proven that they don't intend to pirate stuff by buying a legal copy* to sit through five minutes of "oh, btw, piracy is bad" propaganda.)
...ok, not quite true: the old pirate wholesalers are also affected - back in the day, they were the only ones who could (easily) work around copy protection and charge $1 for some black-maket Asian copy. Those poor guys are also affected by DRM because they've lost their reveniew stream now that you can get it for free. ;) - ihate2regist, on 10/11/2007, -3/+84Yeah but what is the new key?
- wastern, on 10/11/2007, -2/+72They need to understand that all the money they spend on DRM is a waste. It will be cracked, it is only a question of when. Those that will buy the product will buy it, those that won't will not. DRM really changes nothing in the end, its only impact is frustration for the paying consumers
I would gladly pay for DRM free media. However when there is DRM in place I think twice before I purchase and normally opt not to. I'm boycotting all DRMed media. Once iTunes and Amazon start offering their DRM-free music I'll be buying it, until then I will buy nothing. I think I may carry this over into movies as well.
Big business needs to learn our geeks are smarter then their geeks. And with or without DRM their profits will remain virtually the same....they may even go up if others think like me, or you factor in the money saved in DRM R&D. I have no problem paying for a product that is worth paying for....however very few things lately seem to be worth paying for, they turn out crap. There are those movies where I wouldn't seek it out, nor do I really want to watch it, but if its on in front of me I won't turn it off. Is it worth $20 to me? nope, its not worth 20 cents to me - jonnyeh, on 10/11/2007, -0/+47The drop in sales would be blamed on piracy, encouraging more DRM
- Xorp, on 10/11/2007, -8/+45http://binsearch.info/?q=the.matrix.hd-dvd
Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee - k3vin187, on 10/11/2007, -1/+36This is how the trend will continue and wrong or right AACS won't be stopping anyone that's trying to circumvent copy protection. It will only limit the average user that has no idea what AACS is.
Further reading on DRM: http://www.engadget.com/2007/02/16/drm-the-state-of-disrepair/ - drachemorder, on 10/11/2007, -5/+40"You guys are missing the point. You aren't buying the rights to the movie. Your buying a DVD that allows you to watch a version of the movie. Its a license. Not ownership. Thats what the ani-drm movement doesn't understand."
No, we understand quite well. We understand it, and we hate it. The whole point is that we don't WANT to buy merely a license. We want to buy a COPY. One that we can do whatever we want to with with the only exceptions being those explicitly spelled out by copyright law. We don't need licenses; a sane copyright law that accomplishes the purposes listed in the Constitution does everything necessary to "promote the progress ... of useful arts". Anything beyond that is just greed, and we resent greed. - rileyjt, on 10/11/2007, -3/+35>>
You guys are missing the point. You aren't buying the rights to the movie. Your buying a DVD that allows you to watch a version of the movie. Its a license. Not ownership. Thats what the ani-drm movement doesn't understand.
>>
Oh, I understand it alright. We just disagree with it, which seems to be the part you don't understand. - louiedog, on 10/11/2007, -2/+33@wild
That LOTR poster I bought is mine. I don't want to photocopy it and sell it, I don't want to claim it as my own and use it to make a buck. I want to use it for myself. If I want to cut out Gollum's head and use it in a collage, I should be able to. The company that made the poster shouldn't be able to tell me how I need to hang it and limit the ways that I can personally enjoy it.
Why shouldn't I be able to watch a movie I buy on an ipod or put it on my laptop's hard drive along with a dozen other movies so I don't get bored during intercontinental travel?
No one is advocating the sale of bootlegged dvds. Your earlier analogy of flickr artwork getting ripped off doesn't apply. That's about companies making money off of other people's work. This is about people fighting limitations they feel are unfair. Piracy isn't the issue, although it is part of the overall situation. It's about unfair restrictions. - ozroy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+27and an increase in sales would be attributed to DRM working encouraging more.
We just can't win :( - PhireN, on 10/11/2007, -1/+27Is this the actual key, or are you just making it up?
- Cerebral, on 10/11/2007, -0/+22It's actually better if the compromised key NEVER is released to the masses. That way the anti-AACS scene can operate in the background just as secretly as the AACS people by not knowing which key to reject.
I wish slysoft was able to copyright their program so that when AACS tries to reverse engineer the program they can be sued for "hacking" the software. - sirber, on 10/11/2007, -0/+22CD Key is great for Multiplayer games, useless for solo games since no external entity can validate the key.
- EbowUK, on 10/11/2007, -2/+24With respect to the family involved, ***** OFF with the spam for this.
- Smoko, on 10/11/2007, -2/+24Digg won nothing. Except a user base, with a large majority of idiots.
- danmanx, on 10/11/2007, -2/+23I'll keep it simple [and real]:
DRM doesn't work. - mabba18, on 10/11/2007, -7/+26Total, and completely off topic, but:
"Madeleine vanished after her parents left her, and her brother and sister, both aged 2, alone in their room while they went to a tapas bar"
Hmmm, maybe you shouldn't leave your kids alone in a hotel room in a foreign country to go to a bar. It's sad that this little girl has to pay for her parents stupidity, but it's Darwinism at work. - ChrisGranger, on 10/11/2007, -0/+18I think they meant "Matrix set free" as in freed from the shackles of DRM, as opposed to "get a set of Matrix DVDs for free"...
- stable, on 10/11/2007, -0/+16> I don't really understand why DRM is such a big deal to people anyway. I mean if you hate it so much, one could simply not buy any CD, DVD, BRD, ect...
Humiliation is the key. The more often it's cracked, the better, because it publicly humiliates those who think they can control information.
> I mean isn't the best way to stop DRM is to make it so that the profit lost from unsold media content far out weight the profit lost from having people selling pirated material?
By explicitly cracking DRM people are sending a CLEAR message that the concept is flawed by design. At one point a label/studio will go out of their way and infringe the law in order to control their content, which is what happened with SONY last year, so cracking DRM is actually the best way to demonstrate how much you hate it. - Desolite, on 10/11/2007, -1/+17thank god for block sauce.
- insomniacal, on 10/11/2007, -10/+25Who would want Matrix 2 or 3, even for free? They'd have to pay me to watch that crud again.
Matrix 1 was inspired, iconic. The sequels were a pathetic moneygrab. - NJank, on 10/11/2007, -0/+15what, you're not buying it for the 3 versions of running commentaries in 5 different languages? Or for the 'sneak peaks' at new movies? Or the annoyingly slow seek time DVD 'games' they bundle on there? or... ???
- AceTracer, on 10/11/2007, -2/+16Couldn't we just set free the first one? They can encrypt the sequels all they want.
- tortfeasor, on 10/11/2007, -2/+15I actually liked most of Matrix 2 - although the "rave" scene was hard to digest. 3 though.... not sure what happened there.
- DCstewieG, on 10/11/2007, -2/+14Contrary to popular belief, it was always supposed to be a trilogy. I thought they were all fantastic, and each one added a layer to the story and changed how you looked at the previous one. Find a good essay on the philosophy of the Matrix and you'll see the movies completely differently.
- DisposableRob, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11It's an analogy: DRM is like the Matrix enslaving humanity (in this case legally purchased content) and Slysoft is Neo, using super-powered kung-fu to kick DRM's ass and free the content. And like Zion was destroyed and rebuilt several times, AnyDVD HD has to go through several versions. Agent Smith is the growing discontent among the purchasers of legal content of having to deal with DRM while free humans do not (ok, now I'm reaching).
See? - MaynardJK, on 10/11/2007, -3/+14"I actually liked most of Matrix 2 - although the "rave" scene was hard to digest. 3 though.... not sure what happened there."
Yeah, that Neo vs. 1000 Smiths fight was sweet. That CG was almost as good as some of my Xbox games. - NJank, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8Darwinism would involve something appropriate happening to the parents, i.e., the stupid ones. When innocent 3rd parties are the victims instead, that isn't Darwinism, it's just cruel. Unless you want to assume that stupidity is hereditary, but I'd rather not go there right now.
- eviltandem, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8@Leomarth
It's just not that simple. First, they have lots of money (followed by motivation) to lobby for laws that benefit them at my expense. They make billions every year. This gives them both the means and motivation to lobby for even more things that are anti-me.
In the meantime I have no money invested in this market. So on one side of the fence, billions of dollars, on the other, those of us who pay $20 for a dvd or $10 for a theater ticket. It simply is unbalanced.
They are not playing fair either, so why should we? Also, a single persons motivation shouldn't really influence your opinion of an entire side of a debate. - xXShadowstormXx, on 10/11/2007, -4/+10lol, owned again.
- shiftB, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Wow.. that's really ridiculous. Hacked before it even came out. They need to stop putting DRM in media. Trust your users. They'll trust you back.
- GawtMilk, on 10/11/2007, -7/+12@k3vin187
I hate DRM, but that's because there are no content protection schemes that help me. If there was a way to prevent people from stealing my website designs, CSS, photos or logos I'd probably use them. I'm all for the GPL or CC, but the truth is it works less than DRM. Even if I knew the copy protection I was implementing didn't stop all instances of people stealing from me, I'd know it would stop people from saving a photo of mine and just printing it out of their home printer, or worse yet selling it for profit.
The companies by all means know that it won't stop everyone. The truth is that it'll still stop SOMEONE, that's why they use it. A lot of my friends need help getting NO-CD cracks or setting up Virtual drives to run games without the disc, but remember -- if it was still at the level where you simply had to copy and paste files on to your computer, it wouldn't even need that step of asking someone who knows what they're doing...and my computer-illiterate friends could just copy and paste their programs.
There are still DRM schemes that work. CD Keys are one form of them. It's impossible to get on BF-2142 illegally, for example. - sudonim, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8There was no matrix 2 and 3, there was only "The Matrix" (1999) and then two films that were loosely affiliated with it.
If the women who the Watchowski's stole the original script from wrote the other two movies then I'm sure they would have been faithful to the original. - MrFlesh, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5This is even better than a windows hack before a major OS release. It's funny how all the involved parties hyped and hyped and hyped all this new DRM and how it was fool proof....and look at it now. I don't think they understand that they cannot advertise their way into security.
- WorldGroove, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6@wild
Understand that the difference of the photo thing, is that people are putting it on books(and I think even picture frames?) and *SELLING* them. If anyone actually started downloading/ripping movies and *SELLING* them... they deserve any bad thing that happens to 'em. But, if it's just for you to put on your iPod-vid or re-encode for your PSP or something, it's all good.
Just like it's okay to put flickr images for your computer wallpaper at home, at work, PSP, etc... even share with friends.But no selling. Once you involve someone else's work in a profitable transaction without working out details with the owner of the work, I think everyone agrees that's wrong(unless open-source). - zeppo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4I laugh at people who thought -any- of the matrix movies were anything other then just action movies in a sci-fi setting. That said I really like all 3 of them.
- MScrip, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5> "Making content costs money."
You're right, making content costs money. BUT, when you make and sell millions of COPIES of something... shouldn't the price go down? Volume wise? They spend lots of money making ONE of something... and then just press copies. They are plastic discs...
Now a Corvette on the other hand... they spend millions in R&D, then have to physically make each one. - GawtMilk, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6You can use DRM between computers...iTunes lets you use it on up to what, four computers? With Battlefield 2142, you just log into EA Link and you can use BF2142 on that computer. DRM *can be* cross-computer compatable.
- jessi74, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3First half of your comment -- fair enough.
Second half --
Sure, just make everything cost less. That will go over real well.
Earth to oriondarkwood, guess what? Making content costs money. I want a Corvette for $20,000, it seems fair to me. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -5/+8@wild
Please show me where copyright allows this DRM? I buy the product; it's mind to do with as I please. DRM attempts to circumvent copyright and control how I use the product I payed money for. This is unconstitutional, and is why Copyright was never allowed this power. - D4r7h3v1l, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I guarantee you, if CDs cost $5 per album, I would buy ∞ times more. I currently do not buy any CDs because they are way too expensive for what you get. If they lowered the prices, many people would start buying media that they never would have before.
- dilpil1, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3A quarter for a song?
I would never sell my music for that cheap. - BARTZ13, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@ people in this section.... There is a BIG difference between DRM for Movies and DRM for games... DRM for games is locked by its own personal protection (e.g. Secure Rom, Star-force & etc). This really isn't DRM protection because all it does it protects a game from being Copied. It's universal to be playable on any Computer with a basic DVD or CD drive. DRM for Movies are trying to prevent where and on what you can play your DVD. Like region codes or codecs/formats - HD will play on this player but not this one. Games can be easily be copied but able to use as a play disc (unless you use a program to make the image work/crack & so on. There is a big difference between the motives of the MPAA & RIAA compared to the gaming industry. The gaming industry is only worried about disk protection where as the MPAA & RIAA want to control what you bought.
- digitalranger, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2The Matrix Trilogy in High Def is now cracked. Kudos, bravo, I am genuinely happy about this. Although I hope that the "suits" appreciate that it's been cracked on principal, rather than for *sharing*.
Seriously, at 20GB-40GB a movie, who is really going to bother downloading them when you can download the standard definition in 4 hours or less?
What would be better is if HD-DVD/BluRay ripping tools were widely available and the hackers sent out updates, then people who have bought their content can make legitimate back-ups of their own without having to do a huge ridiculous download. - digitalranger, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@Tourney3p0:
Okay, but how many people have got prohibitive bandwidth caps from their ISP? - Leomarth, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3The entertainment industries need a new business model. One thats tolerant of not making money from every copy of their content. Lets face it, no matter how easily available something is, many people will still want to purchase it if asked to because they don't want the hassle of using special software to strip a file of DRM. Many people will want to buy it because they support a certain artist or actor.
They should probably take that money and run knowing that they may spend a lot more money on lawsuits and new DRM development than they would make on hunting down a pirate or two. - razordancer, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Easy job - work for years on something that gets cracked before (or shortly after) you release it, and still get paid!
-
Show 51 - 100 of 113 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is