ThinSkin writes "In an effort to encourage consumers to embrace digital content, The Electronic Frontier Foundation is fighting a bill that would restrict owners of analog devices from recording analog content. For instance, if a fan wishes to tape a Baseball game on his VCR, the VCR would re-encode the content of that game and convert it into a digital form, which would then be filled with right restrictions and so forth. The process would be driven by VRAM (Veil Rights Assertion Mark), a technology that stamps analog content with DRM schemes."Ads_xl=0;Ads_yl=0;Ads_xp='';Ads_yp='';Ads_xp1='';Ads_yp1='';Ads_par='';Ads_cnturl='';Ads_prf='page=article';Ads_channels='RON_P6_IMU';Ads_wrd='media,tech,yro';Ads_kid=0;Ads_bid=0;Ads_sec=0; New Bill Threatens to Plug "Analog Hole" Log in/Create an Account | Top | 367 comments (Spill at 50!) | Index Only | Search Discussion Display Options Threshold: -1: 367 comments 0: 358 comments 1: 286 comments 2: 199 comments 3: 66 comments 4: 44 comments 5: 31 comments Flat Nested No Comments Threaded Oldest First Newest First Highest Scores First Oldest First (Ignore Threads) Newest First (Ignore Threads) The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way. Dupity Dupe (Score:5, Informative) by kernel_dan (850552) <slashdevslashtty.gmail@com> on Friday November 04, @01:07AM (#13948203) Dupe [slashdot.org]. But I do like the information-wants-to-be-encrypted dept. [ Reply to This Re:Dupity Dupe (Score:5, Funny) by ajlitt (19055) on Friday November 04, @01:11AM (#13948225) (http://www.splunge.net/) The **AA might just manage to plug the Analog Hole, but /. will never plug the Dupe Hole. [ Reply to This | ParentA Million voices by RedNovember (Score:1) Friday November 04, @07:20AM2 replies beneath your current threshold.Re:Dupity Dupe by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Friday November 04, @02:01AMRe:Dupity Dupe by Anonymous Writer (Score:2) Friday November 04, @11:27AMNot Really a Dupe by mosb1000 (Score:2) Friday November 04, @02:22AM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Re:Dupity Dupe (Score:5, Insightful) by bhtooefr (649901) <(moc.liamg) (ta) (rfeoothb)> on Friday November 04, @05:28AM (#13948817) (http://my.opera.com/bhtooefr/blog/ | Last Journal: Saturday June 11, @09:07AM) Is this a bad thing that it's a dupe?Much like the Sony rootkit article, this getting duped as much as possible is actually a very good thing. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Dupity Dupe by JohnnyLocust (Score:1) Friday November 04, @11:25AMRe:Dupity Dupe by Ignominious Cow Herd (Score:1) Friday November 04, @04:31PMRe:Dupity Dupe by An dochasac (Score:3) Friday November 04, @05:41AMRe:Dupity Dupe by ratpack91 (Score:2) Friday November 04, @07:32AMRe:Dupity Dupe by An dochasac (Score:2) Friday November 04, @08:58AMRe:Dupity Dupe by RyuuzakiTetsuya (Score:2) Friday November 04, @09:43AMRe:Dupity Dupe by kernel_dan (Score:2) Friday November 04, @10:51AMRe:Dupity Dupe by Pharmboy (Score:2) Friday November 04, @05:53PMRe:Dupity Dupe by RyuuzakiTetsuya (Score:2) Friday November 04, @09:00PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Thank doG... by Elbowgeek (Score:1) Friday November 04, @11:43AMDRM this! by TFGeditor (Score:2) Friday November 04, @03:04PM2 replies beneath your current threshold.New meaning to an old word by soma_0806 (Score:1) Friday November 04, @01:08AMRe:New meaning to an old word by bstone (Score:3) Friday November 04, @01:21AM Re:New meaning to an old word (Score:5, Insightful) by bersl2 (689221) on Friday November 04, @02:04AM (#13948378) (Last Journal: Monday October 03, @12:08AM) This is the problem with thinking of the so-called "intellectual property" as property.The whole point of copyright is that it's the idea that matters*; and yet, once we can finally decouple the idea from the carrier medium by making it into a stream of bits that can be sent across the world within fractions of a second, we see that trying to reapply the previous metaphor of the physical object requires that we impose such drastic controls, since the most natural thing to do is to spread information, unlike when the idea depended on the replication of the media as well---you can't click and drag a second copy of a book from the first one.I think that the selling of ideas by copy cannot be done anymore, unless you impose this unnatural and invasive system onto the flow of information, and that it's going to be a painful process to widely come to this realization. Everyone struggles to find a replacement system to compensate for the loss of by-copy sale (a ransom system? a patronage system?), but surely the search for more money does not trump the free exchange of ideas.* Yeah, that's probably not exactly right, but IANAL, and I need sleep, so it's the best I can do. [ Reply to This | Parent Stop watching (Score:5, Insightful) by TiggertheMad (556308) on Friday November 04, @04:04AM (#13948631) (http://www.thebamboogrove.com/ | Last Journal: Wednesday April 06, @03:09PM) It seems to me that they (The networks) seem to place a higher value on their content than I do. I think years of having a captive audience have spoiled them to the idea that they are entitled to be able to use a public resource to beam their content to anyone who will still watch it, and still control how it is viewed.Personally, I think that the price of having to watch nine minutes of commercials for every twenty one minutes of programming is too high, especially considdering the volume of really crappy shows on T.V. (there are good ones, they are just a rarity.) That I cannot tape it and watch it when I have free time is too much. I'm not organizing my life to fit their schedule.Don't devote energy fighting them. Let them waste all the money they want buying politicians and lobbyists. They can rule their twisted little corner of the airwaves with an iorn fist. (Insert obligatory princess Leia line from SW here.) I just quit watching TV. It's amazing how much other stuff there is to do in life when you stop watching TV, and how much free time you have to do it.(For example, you can go post frothing neo-luddite rants about 'killing your tv' on your favorite internet discussion board...) [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Stop watching by orasio (Score:2) Friday November 04, @09:05AMRe:Stop watching by Hiro Antagonist (Score:2) Friday November 04, @10:24AMRe:Stop watching by InvalidError (Score:2) Friday November 04, @02:01PMRe:Stop watching by Hiro Antagonist (Score:2) Friday November 04, @03:52PMRe:Stop watching by InvalidError (Score:2) Friday November 04, @04:58PMRe:Stop watching by spectre_240sx (Score:2) Friday November 04, @11:51AMRe:Stop watching by SlashSquatch (Score:1) Friday November 04, @01:57PMWait, are we talking about jews or tvs? by TiggertheMad (Score:2) Friday November 04, @03:04PM First they came for my TV (Score:5, Funny) by orim (583920) <{moc.oohay} {ta} {kmiro}> on Friday November 04, @10:27AM (#13950131) First they came for my TV. But I didn't care much cause I had TiVo, and a lot of the programming was crap anyway.Then they came for my games... outrageous in-game commercial placements, interrupting game play to see the latest offers in entertainment. But I didn't care too much because after the first 15 versions of Civ, the gameplay tends to blend together anyway.Then I tried to go to the movies, but they took that away too. In-movie commercials, and quarter-time commercial breaks while they "change the digital reels upstairs". But I didn't care cause I've seen enough cars blow up to last me a lifetime. Even the Simpsons parody of that got old already.Next was my cell phone. Every two minutes, my phone calls were interrupted by a 15-second product slogan. My cell phone Pacman turned into the Pepsi sign overnight. But I didn't care cause I hate phones anyway.When all the indoor entertainment was taken away and I hate to face the daylight, they came for that too. Huge billboards sprung up everywhere, they started painting the roads with Ford logos, the traffic lights were hung from McDonald's arches, and no building was left untouched without a product placement (Informed Consumer Act of 2015). I had nowhere to go to escape.Finally, when they came to tattoo corporate logos on my family, I could do nothing. I couldn't even call for help, for I had already tossed my cell phone. [ Reply to This | Parent1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Stop watching what? by slo_learner (Score:1) Friday November 04, @11:01AM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:New meaning to an old word by rohan972 (Score:3) Friday November 04, @04:49AMRe:New meaning to an old word by ShieldW0lf (Score:2) Friday November 04, @09:24AMRe:New meaning to an old word by rohan972 (Score:1) Friday November 04, @05:59PMRe:New meaning to an old word by bersl2 (Score:2) Friday November 04, @04:07PMRe:New meaning to an old word by rohan972 (Score:1) Friday November 04, @05:37PM Re:New meaning to an old word (Score:4, Interesting) by Znork (31774) on Friday November 04, @04:59AM (#13948753) "Everyone struggles to find a replacement system"Frankly, it shouldnt be that much of a struggle. In essense it's just another subsidy/welfare system, where we take in money in the form of taxes (equivalent to the monopoly rent on artificially scarce 'protected' items), and give to those we wish to subsidize. Currently, the system is indirect, as the money usually goes to other parties than the ones we wish to subsidize, and the monopoly rent is an indirect tax that doesnt quite show up in the government budget, but that doesnt make it any less real.Once you realize the whole IP issue is just an economic sleight-of-hand illusionist trick, you realize it isnt that hard to come up with a solution either. Like any other such system it's just a question of how much the taxpayers will accept paying for, and how to best use those taxes for the specific purpose they are supposed to serve. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:New meaning to an old word by AndersOSU (Score:2) Friday November 04, @09:34AMRe:New meaning to an old word by Znork (Score:2) Friday November 04, @01:19PMRe:New meaning to an old word by Art Tatum (Score:2) Friday November 04, @02:58PMRe:New meaning to an old word by mpe (Score:2) Friday November 04, @03:36PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:New meaning to an old word by gnuLNX (Score:1) Friday November 04, @08:36AMRe:New meaning to an old word by Taladar (Score:2) Friday November 04, @08:55AMRe:New meaning to an old word by StopSayingYouSir (Score:1) Friday November 04, @11:43AMRe:New meaning to an old word by AgentGibbled (Score:1) Friday November 04, @11:38AMRe:New meaning to an old word by cayenne8 (Score:2) Friday November 04, @12:23PMRe:New meaning to an old word by mpe (Score:2) Friday November 04, @03:48PMRe:New meaning to an old word by crabpeople (Score:2) Friday November 04, @11:46AMRe:New meaning to an old word by Kjella (Score:2) Friday November 04, @03:58AMRe:New meaning to an old word by aussie_a (Score:3) Friday November 04, @04:00AM Re:New meaning to an old word (Score:4, Insightful) by CastrTroy (595695) on Friday November 04, @09:12AM (#13949515) (http://www.kibbee.ca/) I think that's the major reason that Schwarzenegger got elected governor. I remember one speech he did. He said something about not worrying about corporations bribing him, because he was already rich. I think corporations should be outlawed from giving money to politicians. They are not voting entities. They should not be able to give money to politicians to get what they want. The corporations should be able to speak their minds, about what they want, but they shouldn't be giving money to them. That's the same as a bribe. Only personal donations should be allowed. And it should probably be capped, otherwise, private citizens are committing bribery too. Giving large chunks of money to a campaign that is obviously going to win, because thats the way it always goes in that jurisdiction, is pretty much nothing more than a bribe. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:New meaning to an old word by Phisbut (Score:2) Friday November 04, @01:49PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:New meaning to an old word by happyemoticon (Score:2) Friday November 04, @02:08PMRe:New meaning to an old word by CastrTroy (Score:2) Friday November 04, @02:25PMRe:New meaning to an old word by MacDork (Score:2) Friday November 04, @09:31PMRe:New meaning to an old word by robertjw (Score:2) Friday November 04, @11:57AMRe:New meaning to an old word by cayenne8 (Score:2) Friday November 04, @12:28PMRe:New meaning to an old word by robertjw (Score:2) Friday November 04, @03:22PMGoing further off topic... by laughing rabbit (Score:1) Friday November 04, @05:08PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. This doesn't matter for us...! (Score:4, Funny) by QQoicu2 (797685) on Friday November 04, @01:09AM (#13948214) "[I]f you're someone who actually wants to infringe copyright by downloading video from the Internet, this will have zero effect on you," said Cory Doctorow, EFF's European representative, writing in his blog, BoingBoing.net, on the subject. So, of course, most /.ers have nothing to worry about. :-) [ Reply to This Re:This doesn't matter for us...! (Score:5, Insightful) by Dr. Spork (142693) on Friday November 04, @01:26AM (#13948274) Well, not exactly. Many of the people who download stuff illegally do it because there isn't a convenient legal alternative. The absence of that alternative is a big part of the fuel for the piracy culture.So this crazy DRM stuff really will have some effect on illegal downloaders: It will increase the number of people who do the same thing, increasing the quality and quantity of the files available, while making it less likely for each given individual that she'll get in trouble. If there is going to be a realistic move to reduce piracy, it will have to involve making it convenient to stay legal and play by the rules. These DRM roadblocks do just the opposite. The more of these stunts I see, the less wrong piracy starts to seem. It's like they try to punish the people that play by the rules. Yeah, what an incentive! [ Reply to This | ParentRe:This doesn't matter for us...! by Microlith (Score:1) Friday November 04, @01:49AMRe:This doesn't matter for us...! by Baddas (Score:1) Friday November 04, @03:12AMRe:This doesn't matter for us...! by heinousjay (Score:1) Friday November 04, @09:02AMRe:This doesn't matter for us...! by Taevin (Score:2) Friday November 04, @04:55PMRe:This doesn't matter for us...! by heinousjay (Score:1) Friday November 04, @05:13PM Re:This doesn't matter for us...! (Score:4, Insightful) by aussie_a (778472) on Friday November 04, @04:05AM (#13948634) (http://gutterflycomix.com/thequeensland | Last Journal: Friday February 11, @04:09AM) The only reason they download it for free, is because they can't get it for free in stores. While that's true for SOME of the downloaders, according to a survey Australia (after the UK) has the largest number of illegal downloaders of television shows. In Australia, it is extremely difficult to get a lot of American shows, with their being quite a big delay for all but the most popular ones. Unfortunately I couldn't find a link, but that says something. It says that there is a correlation between stuff being inaccessible in a timely manner and easy format, and illegal downloads. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:This doesn't matter for us...! by advocate_one (Score:2) Friday November 04, @07:10AM Re:This doesn't matter for us...! (Score:4, Insightful) by BewireNomali (618969) <lazyrus @ g m a i l . c om> on Friday November 04, @01:49AM (#13948341) (http://aricklenin.blogspot.com/) if by convenient, you mean free, then I guess you're right.my experience has been that downloading has two major upsides: EVERYTHING is available, and everything is free.piracy will increase if nothing changes simply because a generation is growing up accustomed to free product. It won't make sense to pay. It will only get worse as more people become web-centric.I can't speak as to the effects of DRM, but understanding the fundamental psychology of the consumer/downloader is important.Take your average convenience store... tell the clerk to disappear and monitor the cameras for a half an hour. Only a small number of people will leave the cash for their purchase on the counter. Most will loot and bail.The music industry has fucked up by letting too many people get shit for free for too long. It's a culture dynamic. Hollywood is a little better - they got these download deals jumping off on college campuses where you get billed on tuition statements for the shit you download.Let me get used to free shit; don't get mad if I don't want to pay later.As for this DRM shit, it's desperation, but what are the record companies gonna do? [ Reply to This | Parent Re:This doesn't matter for us...! (Score:5, Insightful) by Walkiry (698192) on Friday November 04, @04:08AM (#13948646) (http://walkiry.no-ip.org/) > if by convenient, you mean free, then I guess you're right.Eh, iTunes shows that a lot of people are willing to pay fair and square just for convenience. You're never going to reel in the people who want free no matter what, but you can easily reel in the people who want convenience, ala GP post. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:This doesn't matter for us...! by Robocoastie (Score:1) Friday November 04, @09:11AMRe:This doesn't matter for us...! by mpe (Score:2) Friday November 04, @03:13PM Re:This doesn't matter for us...! (Score:5, Interesting) by blincoln (592401) on Friday November 04, @05:17AM (#13948795) (Last Journal: Sunday March 21, @11:14PM) if by convenient, you mean free, then I guess you're right.I'm sure there are a lot of people out there who just want free stuff. I end up being a pirate because I want to watch Battlestar Galactica, but I'm not willing to pay for cable and some sort of recording device in order to watch one show. So I download episodes and then buy the DVDs when they come out. Spare me any "you could just wait until it comes out on DVD!" comments, please. I can't be bothered to get upset about the idea of adding a six month delay to the time my $40 goes into the bank account of a multinational corporation.If I could buy the episodes as they air for a reasonable price, I would totally do that. I would be open to a number of possibilities:- The cost of a season's worth of episodes adds up to the cost of the DVD set plus $10 for being able to watch them early. When it's released, I pay for shipping and get the DVDs.- Same as above, but the total is e.g. 50% of the cost of the set, and I pay shipping plus the remainder and the convenience fee.- The episodes are super-cheap, e.g. fifty cents each, and I just buy the DVD set at the store.Option three is the easiest, but options one and two let Sci-Fi or whoever take a bigger cut from the DVD set price by selling directly to me.Of course, this will never happen, because for it to be as convenient as it already is for me, the downloaded episodes would have to be non-DRM'd, encoded using a quality codec, and free of commercials. I'm sure this would be a huge hit, but the marketing department would never let it happen.Why do I say a huge hit? Look at something that cannot be reasonably DRM'd, like photographic (as opposed to video) porn. There are tons of porn siterips on p2p networks, but it's still a very profitable industry. They probably realize that the money lost from bootlegs is less than what it would cost to come up with a protection system combined with the cost due to lost customers who weren't willing to put up with the hassle.It would probably do well even with DRM. I wouldn't be a customer, but there are plenty of other people out there who are happy to deal with iTunes (which I find crippled beyond what I'm willing to exchange money for). [ Reply to This | ParentRe:This doesn't matter for us...! by kalbzayn (Score:1) Friday November 04, @08:10AMRe:This doesn't matter for us...! by Svartalf (Score:2) Friday November 04, @12:51PMRe:This doesn't matter for us...! by mpe (Score:2) Friday November 04, @03:23PMRe:This doesn't matter for us...! by wfeick (Score:2) Friday November 04, @02:42PMRe:This doesn't matter for us...! by blincoln (Score:2) Friday November 04, @07:18PMRe:This doesn't matter for us...! by CDarklock (Score:2) Friday November 04, @12:18PMRe:This doesn't matter for us...! by kalbzayn (Score:1) Friday November 04, @12:24PMRe:This doesn't matter for us...! by CDarklock (Score:2) Friday November 04, @12:47PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:This doesn't matter for us...! by jhobbs (Score:2) Friday November 04, @09:36AMRe:This doesn't matter for us...! by BewireNomali (Score:3) Friday November 04, @10:44AMRe:This doesn't matter for us...! by jhobbs (Score:2) Friday November 04, @11:11AMRe:This doesn't matter for us...! by BewireNomali (Score:1) Friday November 04, @11:32AMRe:This doesn't matter for us...! by nine-times (Score:2) Friday November 04, @10:01AMRe:This doesn't matter for us...! by poot_rootbeer (Score:2) Friday November 04, @10:45AMRe:This doesn't matter for us...! by BewireNomali (Score:2) Friday November 04, @12:29PMRe:This doesn't matter for us...! by Catbeller (Score:2) Friday November 04, @10:48AMRe:This doesn't matter for us...! by Pecisk (Score:2) Friday November 04, @03:18AM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:This doesn't matter for us...! by conJunk (Score:2) Friday November 04, @02:11PMHmm... by DoktorGonzo (Score:1) Friday November 04, @01:09AM1 reply beneath your current threshold. No Way !! (Score:4, Funny) by fodi (452415) on Friday November 04, @01:10AM (#13948219) You CANNOT use an acronym with 'RAM' in it to describe something not relate to memory. That's a sin !!! [ Reply to ThisRe:No Way !! by ndansmith (Score:2) Friday November 04, @01:26AM It *is* related (Score:5, Insightful) by scsirob (246572) on Friday November 04, @03:36AM (#13948578) With this technology your are not allowed to have any *memory* of any broadcasted event. Please stay home tonight, someone will stop by to erase *your* memory too.. [ Reply to This | Parent1 reply beneath your current threshold. To be debated yesterday... (Score:5, Informative) by MLopat (848735) on Friday November 04, @01:10AM (#13948220) (http://www.lunadevelopment.com/) Gee thanks. From the article "The Analog Content Security Preservation Act of 2005 is scheduled to be debated in a U.S. House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property on Thursday." So how about a news article discussing the first round of debates? Here's a link to the bill [72.14.207.104]. [ Reply to This Re:To be debated yesterday... (Score:5, Informative) by fafalone (633739) on Friday November 04, @01:49AM (#13948338) Here's a video of the hearings, nearly 2 hours long (show your love of the committee by slashdotting it!) (only available in real video): Oversight Hearing on Content Protection in the Digital Age [streamos.com] They talk about the broadcast flag as well, but is from Thursday and about plugging the analog hole.From http://judiciary.house.gov/Oversight.aspx?ID=202 [house.gov] [ Reply to This | ParentRe:To be debated yesterday... by plasmacutter (Score:2) Friday November 04, @12:04PMRe:To be debated yesterday... by fafalone (Score:2) Friday November 04, @02:34PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.1 reply beneath your current threshold. More info from EFF (Score:4, Informative) by tgtanman (728257) on Friday November 04, @01:11AM (#13948222) https://secure.eff.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&p age=UserAction&id=181 [eff.org]Use the link above to write to your representative in the House and read a draft of the bill [ Reply to This Re:More info from EFF (Score:5, Interesting) by etymxris (121288) on Friday November 04, @03:14AM (#13948522) (http://clevernothing.org/) Here's mine:As my Representative [...snip...] on Thursday, November 3rd, 2005.My chief worry is that the universal restrictions proposed by the content makers will cripple the use of home electronics and computers. In order to enforce "digital rights", proposals such as the "ANALOG CONTENT SECURITY PRESERVATION ACT OF 2005" will require any hardware or software without certain restrictions to be outlawed. However, such built in restrictions are fundamentally opposed to "open source" operating systems that have been gaining popularity in recent years. In an open operating system, restrictions can easily be removed by anyone, and so the free open software contributed by thousands worldwide will become illegal under the proposals suggested by the content providers.I happen to be a user and supporter of such operating systems, and have already long been under the shadow of legislation pushed through by the MPAA and RIAA. For example, I have no legal means of playing DVDs under the operating system I choose to use. Software has been written and published that allows me to play DVDs, but due to the DMCA is illegal in the US. So I must go without. This is bad enough, but the proposed legislation would make all software created by volunteers and released without restrictions to become illegal.The RIAA and MPAA make it seem that the only ones who would want unfettered access to the working of their hardware and software are pirates. This is untrue. Those programming free and open software that is unrestricted by its nature would suddenly have their work outlawed, despite having previously broken no laws. I urge you to oppose such unreasonable restrictions on my behalf. Thank you. [ Reply to This | Parenthehhh heheheehehehehe by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Friday November 04, @01:15AM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Who are they kidding? (Score:5, Interesting) by Orinthe (680210) on Friday November 04, @01:15AM (#13948240) Does anyone really believe that the government could make it illegal to record anything in analog? Come on, think about it--when I want to record my home movies, they're going to require that I only have a DRMed, digital copy? Or if I want to make an audio tape, I'll have to use an expensive, DRM-encumbered digital recorder, instead of a cheap cassette player? Or more pertinent, when a linguistics researcher or reporter wants to record a conversation, or a filmmaker wants to make a movie--there can't be any realistic expectation to force them to go not only digital, but DRM-encumbered digital. Even if such a bill were to be passed, it would be laughed at as the public went on its merry way using older analog and unencumbered digital devices. [ Reply to This Re:Who are they kidding? (Score:4, Insightful) by tsotha (720379) on Friday November 04, @01:25AM (#13948265) Does anyone really believe that the government could make it illegal to record anything in analog? I didn't used to think so. But upon reflection I've changed my mind. I used to think there's no way the government could put the mp3 genie back in the bottle, but for the most part that's exactly what's happened.Look, any government that can make growing and consuming a plant in your house illegal can make analog recording illegal. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Who are they kidding? by Chemical (Score:1) Friday November 04, @01:33AMRe:Who are they kidding? by muellerr1 (Score:1) Friday November 04, @01:29PMRe:Who are they kidding? by Jonboy X (Score:2) Friday November 04, @10:26AMRe:Who are they kidding? by serutan (Score:2) Friday November 04, @01:01PMRe:Who are they kidding? by MichaelSmith (Score:3) Friday November 04, @01:35AMRe:Who are they kidding? by aka1nas (Score:1) Friday November 04, @01:56AMRe:Who are they kidding? by toddestan (Score:2) Friday November 04, @06:22PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Re:Who are they kidding? (Score:5, Interesting) by DigiShaman (671371) on Friday November 04, @02:05AM (#13948380) (http://www.contoso.com/) 1. Prison is big business in America.2. Most if not all polititions are lawers who game the system in their favor.3. DRM will be another nail in the coffin to inforce the limit of free speech.We know what kind of rules and regulations are being (or trying at least) to limit the freedom of speech in the blogisphere. Now the scumbags inside the DC beltway want to limit speech of the podcasters.Yes... I'm paranoid. But given the trends lately, can you *really* blame me?TRUST NO ONE! [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Who are they kidding? by syukton (Score:2) Friday November 04, @03:12AMRe:Who are they kidding? by gnarlin (Score:1) Friday November 04, @06:29AMRe:Who are they kidding? by kocsonya (Score:1) Friday November 04, @09:10AMRe:Who are they kidding? by Rick and Roll (Score:2) Friday November 04, @02:39AMRe:Who are they kidding? by Lehk228 (Score:2) Friday November 04, @02:56AMRe:Who are they kidding? by kin_korn_karn (Score:2) Friday November 04, @01:51PM Re:Who are they kidding? (Score:5, Insightful) by evilviper (135110) on Friday November 04, @02:52AM (#13948477) (Last Journal: Friday August 26, @04:00AM) Does anyone really believe that the government could make it illegal to record anything in analog?Yes. By definition in-fact.Even if such a bill were to be passed, it would be laughed at as the public went on its merry way using older analog and unencumbered digital devices.Oh yeah, you'd be laughing for a few years... Then your digital recorder will break down, and you'll stop laughing.Better to start now. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Who are they kidding? by m50d (Score:3) Friday November 04, @03:21AMRe:Who are they kidding? by Chapium (Score:1) Friday November 04, @11:50AMthey are deadly serious by idlake (Score:2) Friday November 04, @03:27AMRe:Who are they kidding? by Alioth (Score:2) Friday November 04, @05:25AMRe:Who are they kidding? by Eustace Tilley (Score:2) Friday November 04, @06:18AM Re:Who are they kidding? (Score:4, Insightful) by Professor_UNIX (867045) on Friday November 04, @08:22AM (#13949242) What's sad is that I see a day in the next 15 years where my daughter will come up to me and say "Daddy, what were movies and television like before you had to watch them through these MPAA DRM goggles?""Well honey, back then you could look at the TV directly and it wasn't just a display of digital static. You could see the images and video right there on the screen as plain as day in an unencrypted format. Then the MPAA realized that people were still able to take a camcorder and record that display and got Congress to pass the Video Content Protection Act of 2008 to require the DRM-enabled goggles."Actually, hell, that's not sad, I'm looking forward to it. After the Internet gained popularity I started to watch less and less TV and I haven't been to a movie theater in 18 months. More of our content and entertainment will simply come via the Internet in the future instead of the passive television interface that couch potatoes are used to. We just need to ensure that we never allow the powers that be to take away our right to publish our own content with no restrictions (i.e. personal websites, blogs, home videos and photos... anything not created by a major media company). [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Who are they kidding? by vern4of7 (Score:1) Friday November 04, @11:21AM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Who are they kidding? by cryptoguy (Score:1) Friday November 04, @10:20AM1 reply