*HOT* Tech News And Downloads, I Would Read This Thread And Post Any Good Info

Attorneys Go After Hotlinkers

A view of hotlinking & copyright by a law firm
Deacons

Copyright and deep linking

Introduction
Readers of e-commerce magazines may be familiar with the ongoing controversy over copyright and deep linking (brought to the public's attention in John Dvorak's article 'Link to me and I will sue you', PC Magazine, May 1997). Since Dvorak's article, legal threats issued by law firms in respect of deep linking have become commonplace. Courts in various countries have provided more precedents to lawyers which give support to threats of legal proceedings.

This article examines copyright and deep linking on the Internet, and highlights the technical solutions to prevent deep linking to your site. It is based upon recent international developments in jurisdictions other than Hong Kong. There is no settled Hong Kong case law or legislation on this issue. If you would like further information on the current law in Hong Kong relating to copyright and deep linking, please do not hesitate to contact us. This article is only a summary and should not be relied upon as a substitute for detailed advice in individual cases.

Copyright

The principle of copyright is embodied in its name: the right to copy. If you buy a painting, you may frame it, burn it or fly it like a kite, but unless you have also expressly bought the copyright in the painting, you may not copy it. If that doesn't make much sense at first glance, substitute the word 'painting' for 'book': you can do whatever you like with the book except copy it (and, impliedly, distribute those copies).

Judges hand down decisions in cases on copyright which often make reference to principles found in unfair competition law. Judges are loath to allow someone to make money from another person's efforts.

The Internet is also covered by copyright law. Consider the Internet as being a free newspaper which is delivered to your mailbox everyday (free, except for the hardware, software and ISP connection fees). You may read the newspaper, keep it or dispose of it. But you may not copy it.

To paraphrase Richard Stallman of the Free Software Foundation ('Copyleft and Open Source Software' seminar in Dublin on 6 February 2001), a literal application of copyright law does not easily dove-tail with Internet technology.

Strictly speaking, copying information to a web browser cache is an infringement of copyright.

Deep linking

Deep linking is concerned with URL links to web pages by-passing a website gateway page. When bypassing the gateway, much of the website's advertising and badges of ownership (author's acknowledgements, trade mark and copyright warnings, and the website's name - with its associated goodwill) are avoided.

Deep linking is effectively copying and profiting from someone else's labours. (It also effectively suggests the linked page has some commercial association or endorsement to the linking website.)


Protection and exposure

Many website owners face a dilemma between protecting their intellectual property and gaining exposure through the Internet. Valuable copyrighted work and trade marks exist and are promoted on their websites and they wish to control this intellectual property to prevent improper or misleading use of it by others. Website owners also want users to visit each of their pages and see their intellectual property, and, quite often, the banner link advertisements that accompany that intellectual property. This is, after all, how many sites create income.

Implied consent

If you place your copyrighted material on the Web, there is a school of thought which claims that in doing so you have consented to anyone copying that material - implied consent. This makes a lot of sense in the medium where, on a second-by-second basis, people post original images on on-line bulletin boards, copy URLs into caches or just press 'print'.

The claim is further argued by the fact that if you do not consent to deep linking, you should block the ability of another website to deep link the page. The New York Times' on-line site, for example, uses such a solution to prevent deep linking - unless you are a subscriber, you cannot access the text.

If the means is available to block deep linking, and a website owner who complains of the deep link has not applied a technological solution to stop the deep linking, the argument is that the law should not step in and declare this an infringement of the website owner's copyright.

The flavour or ethos of the Internet is the unrestricted flow of information. However, is it fair to say that commercial website owners should not rely upon already congested courts and ill-fitting copyright laws to stop that which they are technologically able to prevent?

If a website does not even have a basic warning such as 'no license, express or implied, is granted to any person to provide a URL link in any manner to this site without the express prior written permission of the owner' then it could be argued that the website owner has given implied consent to deep-link.

The argument of implied consent, claimed by the libertines of the Internet, is overlooked by judges.

Preventing deep linking to your site

While lawyers and judges fumble with the technology, those more familiar with website development know that there are other solutions. Website owners can install a simple script to break deep links, or adopt a URL token scheme (whereby a permission token is embedded dynamically into the query string on the link). The token can have a timing mechanism, so that the permission token changes every hour or everyday. An expired token will not let a visitor get to the sought-after page, or alternatively bumps the visitor to the gateway page.

It is even easier to simply make a site and its pages password-protected. It is of no assistance, however, that many websites are expressly silent on whether someone is allowed to deep link to that site. No doubt the clutter of a short paragraph of legal jargon (or even the words 'you may not deep link to any page on this site') will not look good in a Flash 4 or Shockwave introduction. But a signpost indicating whether or not (and particularly not) other websites may deep link might avoid many disputes involving unwitting linkers and irate big-ticket website owners.

Without such a warning, and where a website owner has not taken the relatively unsophisticated steps necessary to prevent deep linking, courts would be very reluctant to award anything other than nominal (token) damages against a deep linker.

Source: Deacons August 2001

DEACONS
3RD-7TH, 18TH & 29TH FLOORS, ALEXANDRA HOUSE, CENTRAL, HONG KONG, HONG KONG
DX: DX-9010-IC
tel: 852 2825 9211 fax: 852 2810 0431
email: hongkong@deaconslaw.com

 

Customers miffed over DirecTV with TiVo problems
Many report that the popular Season Pass feature stopped functioning in December; DirecTV says it's aware of the problem.
By Erica Ogg
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
Published: January 12, 2007, 5:43 PM PST

Customers of DirecTV with TiVo have been blanketing the satellite provider's online user forums with complaints of a malfunction in the DVR service.

Complaints of the problem first surfaced in early December, but DirecTV spokesman Robert Mercer said Friday he didn't know the exact cause of the glitch. The company "is aware of the problem and should have it fixed by this evening," Mercer said.

Many forum posters say that the Season Pass feature, which enables users to tell the set-top box which programs to automatically record, has stopped recording those shows altogether, or is only doing so intermittently.

An eight-year customer of DirecTV from Wilmington, N.C., who asked that his name not be used, said in an interview that earlier this week his "To Do List"--the list of programs the set-top plans to record, based partly on the Season Pass--"was getting shorter and shorter and shorter and wasn't showing that anything would record after about 10 p.m.
Some customers are reporting on DirecTV user forums and TivoCommunity.com that it's not until speaking with their third or fourth DirecTV customer service representative that the company admits to a problem. Many say they were told it was a "known issue" that DirecTV was working on, and that the problem might be corrected in anything from a day to 30 days.

Many report being temporarily mollified with discounts, ranging from $5 off DirecTV with TiVo for six months or $10 off for three months, to free Showtime for a month. Others are not so easily placated.

"There are lots of alternatives out there with Dish Network, cable companies offering DVRs free with their service," said the Wilmington, N.C., customer. "If it's not fixed soon, I may consider jumping ship, especially since this has been a known issue for probably a month."

I know I'm asking for a discount...TiVo did not record the season premier of "24"...shows 12 episodes to record...however none are set to record...thanks season pass manager...

 

In regard to DirecTV, I had two Tivo/DVR receivers, on died so I had to get DirecTV's piece of junk reciever they are now passing off and no longer has Tivo included in it. Now I am scrounging ebay in the hope to find another DirecTV receiver with the Tivo included. The new DirecTV receiver without it is the pits.

 

Jan 15, 2007 9:22 pm US/Pacific
Vallejo Man Burned As Cell Phone Ignites Fire

(CBS) VALLEJO, Calif. A cell phone apparently ignited in a man's pocket and started a fire that burned his hotel room and caused severe burns over half his body, Vallejo fire department officials said.

Luis Picaso, 59, of Vallejo, was in stable condition Monday at UC Davis Medical Center with second and third-degree burns to his upper body, back, right arm and right leg, Vallejo Fire Department assistant chief Kurt Henke said.

Firefighters arrived at the residential Travelers Hotel on Georgia Street on Saturday night to find Picaso lying on the bathroom floor after a malfunctioning cell phone in Picaso's pants pocket set fire to his nylon and polyester clothes, Henke said.

"It was a freak accident. It just happened and could happen anytime," added Vallejo Fire Department spokesman Bill Tweedy.

Tweedy explained that it's possible a button on the phone inside Picaso's pocket was depressed for a long time causing overheating, a short circuit or other malfunction. Tweedy said he has heard of cell phones heating up even after they were shut off.

"The phones get warm after you've been talking for a long time and the powerful batteries in them can overheat," he said.

The flames spread to a plastic chair, setting off a hotel sprinkler that held the fire in check, firefighters said. The fire and water caused $75,000 damage to the room and a business on the ground floor.

Authorities declined to name the manufacturer and model of the phone, but Tweedy said that Saturday's incident is not that unusual.

"There have been a couple other cases in California in the past few years," Tweedy said. "It's no different than any other fires involving mechanical or electrical items," Tweedy said.

A 16-year-old girl suffered second-degree burns when her cell phone in her back pocket caught fire, the Ontario, Calif. Fire Department reported in June 2004.

An incident in May 2004 in New Paltz, N.Y. lent credibility to the suspicion that a cell phone could ignite a fire at a gas pump. A 21-year-old student was filling up at the pump when his phone rang. When he answered it a large flash occurred at the nozzle and started a fire.

Thousands of counterfeit LG-branded cell phone batteries were also recalled in June 2004 because they could overheat and pose a fire hazard, according to the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

(© MMVII, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.)

Hey, Arniebear
Good to see you here...
I just had one of my TiVo's go out also...hope its just hard drive...I can replace that...NEW DVR'S ARE HORRIBLE PIECE'S OF JUNK...

 

Witness: Executed man's 'head just snapped off'
POSTED: 1:29 a.m. EST, January 16, 2007

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- A journalist who saw videotape of the Monday hangings of Saddam Hussein's half-brother and the dictator's former chief judge has described how one of the men was decapitated.

New York Times reporter John F. Burns told CNN's Wolf Blitzer Monday evening that Barzan Hassan's head "just snapped off," because he was apparently given too much rope and fell too far -- about eight feet -- for a man of his medium build and weight.

The hangman's calculations -- a grim science governing the weight of the condemned and how much rope is necessary to kill quickly -- were apparently wrong, Burns said.(Read how hanging is supposed to work)

He said: "Two deeply frightened men in orange jumpsuits, Guantanamo-style, standing on the trapdoor, black hoods over their heads as they intoned the prayer of death.

"As ... they dropped the eight feet allowed by the coiled rope his head just snapped off, just like that, in an instant." (Watch John Burns' full description of the hangings Video)

Burns was among a small group of reporters, which did not include CNN, who were invited to watch a videotape of the two side-by-side hangings.

The hangings happened at about 3 a.m. Monday (7 p.m. Sunday ET), said Basam Ridha, spokesman for Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's office.

After the men dropped, Burns said, the videotape shows Hassan "lying face down -- [a] headless pool of blood accumulating around his neck."

Hassan's head was still in the black hood that covered his face before he fell through the trapdoor, according to Burns.

"It seems what happened was that the Iraqi officials who had worked so hard to get this one right just got it wrong," he said.

Burns said the decapitation appeared to be accidental and the execution of the second man, Awad Bandar, appeared to be properly conducted.

"It only goes to show that, you know, when things go wrong, they go very badly wrong in Iraq," said Burns, who has covered the region for many years.

The Iraqi government previously released a silent video of Saddam Hussein's December 30 execution, that ends before the actual hanging.

However, unauthorized mobile phone video showed Hussein's hanging and included audio of Shiite guards taunting the Sunni ex-dictator on the gallows.

That video sparked widespread outrage and suggestions the execution was a sectarian lynching. (Watch crowds in Sadr City celebrate the hangings Video)

There was no audio on the videotape of Monday's executions, Burns said.

Iraqi officials were motivated to show the videotape to reporters because they are "absolutely determined," Burns said, that the video not get on the Internet and "be replayed a million times, especially across the Middle East."

The video will not be released to the public, Ridha said.

Compared to the approximately 25 people who witnessed Hussein's hanging, only about 10-12 people saw Monday's executions, said Burns.

Everyone in the room was required to sign an agreement promising not to engage in taunting the condemned men or recording the execution, said Ridha, who was a witness.

"It was not like a very pretty scene," said Ridha, who called the decapitation "an act of God."

According to their wishes, Hassan and Bandar were buried around 8:30 p.m. Monday near Hussein's grave in Owja, Iraq, a local government spokesman told CNN.

The men were executed for their roles in the killings of 148 men and boys after a 1982 assassination attempt on Hussein in Dujail, Iraq.

Meanwhile, Iraqi Sunnis reacted with anger to the decapitation, and some Shiites expressed shock at the way the hanging was conducted, according to wire reports. (Full story)
'Very apologetic'

Describing Monday's execution, Ridha said the two men, dressed in their orange prisoner uniforms, "looked very surprised" that they were actually going to be hanged.

They "were very apologetic," asking that they not be put to death, he said. "They asked God for forgiveness," he said.

Hoods were placed over their heads, unlike Hussein, who asked not to be given a hood when he was hanged on the same gallows, Ridha said.

The two were sentenced to death in November.

Their death sentences were upheld by an Iraqi appeals court in December but delayed amid the controversy surrounding Hussein's execution.

CNN's Arwa Damon and Mohammed Tawfeeq contributed to this report.

Copyright 2007 CNN. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Associated Press contributed to this report.

 

Investigation Follows Fatal Radio Station Contest

Mon Jan 15, 11:28 AM ET

Officials continue to investigate after a Rancho Cordova woman died Friday following a water-drinking contest at a Sacramento radio station.
The family of Jennifer Strange said she died after taking part in a competition at the office of KDND 107.9 The End in an attempt to win a Nintendo Wii video game system for her three children.
Assistant Sacramento County coroner Ed Smith said a preliminary investigation found evidence consistent with water intoxication in the death.
Strange was the runner-up in the contest that required drinking huge amounts of water in a short amount of time.Contest winner Lucy Davidson recalled how she and Strange both got ill after the contest. "After it was all over ... we both went into the bathroom and we were both sick," Davidson said. "She's throwing up. I'm throwing up. I mean, we just had too much."Davidson recovered from her illness. Strange was found dead at her Rancho Cordova home Friday afternoon.
Water intoxication occurs when a person ingests too much water, causing organs and the brain to swell.On Monday, a DJ at the radio station came on the air, but there was no mention of the incident. John Geary, vice president for station parent company Entercom Sacramento, said he is "awaiting information that will help explain how this tragic event occurred."
Meanwhile, Davidson expressed sadness about what happened. "It's so horrible," Davidson added. "You know, you don't think water is going to kill you." Contestants signed a waiver going into the contest and were allowed to leave at any time.

 

Bonnaroo Settles In
Updated 03:39 PST Sat, Jan 13 2007

Bonnaroo organizers Superfly Productions and AC Entertainment have purchased a major portion of the site where the annual music festival is held.
The purchase of 530 acres in Manchester, Tenn., encompasses all of the performance areas and much of the camping and parking area used for the annual festival; the festival will continue to lease another 250 acres that currently serve as additional parking and camping.
In addition to becoming the permanent venue for Bonnaroo, the purchase will allow organizers to open the site for a variety of other select events.
"We are really excited about making this investment," Superfly's Jonathan Mayers said in a statement. "It's an incredible property that can lend itself to many different kinds of events and gatherings. Our hope is that this will become one of the premier event sites in the world. We plan to work closely with all local officials as we determine what types of events will be a good match for this site. We are very open-minded about working with anyone interested in using the property."
The new owners are developing a master plan for the land that will be phased in over several years. Improvements will focus on making the event more comfortable for fans and increasing the efficiency of Bonnaroo production as well as developing the infrastructure necessary to host multiple events. Initial improvements will likely begin following this year's event, scheduled for June 14-17.
A limited number of early-bird discounted tickets went on sale at the end of last year's event and quickly sold out. Regular tickets will go on sale with the announcement of this year's lineup, which is expected to begin at the end of the month.

 

Hackers Break HD DVD Copy Protection
There's a new twist in the ongoing battle between the next-generation, high-definition DVD standards: Hackers have cracked the antipiracy software on several movies published in the HD DVD format.
Perhaps ironically, hackers chose to break the copy-protection system in Universal's "Serenity," a 2005 science fiction film about a renegade crew of space outlaws. An informal, global alliance of hackers also deciphered the antipiracy protection on "12 Monkeys" and Peter Jackson's "King Kong."

The hackers are distributing copies of the films using BitTorrent, a once-controversial file-sharing tool that is working to clean up its reputation by forging partnerships with TV and movie companies.

Meanwhile, HD DVD and Blu-ray continue to duke it out for consumer votes that would elect one format the ultimate marketplace winner.

Security Background

Sony , Hewlett-Packard, and Dell , along with the majority of Hollywood studios, back the Blu-ray standard, giving consumers a far greater catalog of movies to choose from. Warner Bros. and Paramount support both formats, while Universal has offered its exclusive support to HD DVD. Toshiba, Microsoft , and Intel also stand behind the HD DVD standard.

Both HD DVD and Blu-ray use the same copy-protection scheme, dubbed Advanced Access Content System (AACS). Technology, entertainment, and consumer electronics industry players, including members from both format camps, collaborated to create the system.

While both formats use AACS, Blu-ray adds additional layers of security. The Blu-ray Disc Association mandates that disc manufacturers embed a globally unique identifier in the Blu-ray media to prevent hardware from playing illegitimate discs.

There are varying opinions on how the hacking incidents will affect the format wars, but most analysts maintain that there is no hack-proof digital media and that honest, movie-buying consumers won't notice much of an impact.

Legal Stances

The companies behind AACS will, however, take an aggressive legal stance against the copyright violators, according to Phil Leigh, an Inside Digital Media analyst who pointed out that the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has paved the way for lawsuits against copyright violators.

Consumers who look for a free ticket to popular DVD downloads on file-sharing networks could discover that Hollywood has learned some valuable lessons from the RIAA's antipiracy handbook, Leigh said. Beyond lawsuits, he noted, there are guerilla warfare strategies being fought on the front lines against music and movie piracy.

"There are a number of techniques that the media companies have used to frustrate the peer-to-peer networks," Leigh explained. Record labels, for example, have engaged third-parties to put up a lot of files that are labeled correctly but are "just static" when you open them, he said.


By Jennifer LeClaire

 

AnyDVD 6.1.1.1 (beta)

http://sandbox.slysoft.com/SetupAnyDVD6111.exe

6.1.1.1 2007 01 20
- New: Added support for new versions of the SONY Arccos protection
(e.g., "Monster House" and "RV", Germany) to the option to remove
"Protection based on unreadable Sectors"
- New: Added workaround for some drives (e.g. TSSTCORP DVD-ROM
SH-D162C) where disc insertion was not always correctly detected
by AnyDVD and decryption would not work.
- Fix: Removing Sony Arccos at the end of a title did sometimes
caused a "Navigation Pack error" or could cause the title to
disappear completely in elby CloneDVD.
- Fix: Bug introduced in 6.1.0.7, disc recognition did not work
correctly
- Fix: Bug introduced in 6.1.0.7, driver could switch into safe mode
without reason
- Some minor fixes and improvements __________________
James

SlySoft products

 

I KNOW that you're not back yet but glad to see you posting anyway. Have a great one.

........c

edit: spelling and grammar.....lol

 

today i did two movie with beta anydvd 6111,no programs...
works great

 

Good to hear from you Ireland...Hope vacation has been relaxing...

 

i finished my corporation and my own taxes and i did have a lot of work with the help of my accountant...this year i will be supporting the goverment for .001 seconds this year..

 

good to see your postings.

 

That long eh?? Fire him!!! LOL

 

Hi everybody,

Enjoy a good cup of coffee.

I got the following in a news letter, and thought about sharing it...


Microsoft ends OEM release on Office 2007
MS drops Office 2007 OEM in favor of profit and control

Microsoft will no longer offer any OEM software with it's Office 2007 product lines: A move which has astonished resellers and angered small business users, who will now have to pay substantially higher prices to buy or upgrade their Microsoft office suites and component software.

Microsoft Office 2007 will be avaialble in a system builder format for pre-installation, but will be sold to end users in a license only format- When a user purchases OEM Office 2007 software, they receive no software - Only a keycode and COA to be used on their pre-installed version of office.

Why have MS done this? This moves means that Office 07 OEM Software is available ONLY with a new PC. MS want to enforce higher margins vs competitive freemarket OEM channels where customer savings are higher. But why would charging customers double and cutting out the reseller market make good business sense? Monopolism still dominates the software industry. Microsoft, by dominating sales channels and making it impossible to buy and resell OEM software, can not only aquire customers without market competition, they will also be able to control price, charging resellers and end users whatever they choose.

It seems when it comes to 2007 what is good for Microsoft is bad for it's customers.

 

I have been using Open Office for years...does everything that MS Office does...but FREE...Just another reason to hate Micro$uck...

http://www.openoffice.org/

 

DRM, Vista and your rights
[ Tuesday, 23 January 2007, michuk ]

In the US, France and a few other countries it is already forbidden to play legally purchased music or videos using GNU/Linux media players. Sounds like sci-fi? Unfortunately not. And it won’t end up on multimedia only. Welcome to the the new era of DRM!

Author: Borys Musielak

In this article I would like to explain the problem of Digital Rights (or restrictions) Management, especially in the version promoted by Microsoft with the new Windows Vista release. Not everyone is familiar with the dangers of the new “standard” for the whole computer industry. Yes, the whole industry — because it goes way beyond the software produced by the giant from Redmond and its affiliates.
DRM, Trusted Computing — what kind of animal is that?

Quoting Wikipedia:

Digital Rights Management (generally abbreviated to DRM) is an umbrella term that refers to any of several technologies used by publishers or copyright owners to control access to and usage of digital data or hardware, and to restrictions associated with a specific instance of a digital work or device. The term is often confused with copy protection and technical protection measures; these two terms refer to technologies that control or restrict the use and access of digital content on electronic devices with such technologies installed, acting as components of a DRM design.

A similar (but a bit more specialized) term to DRM is Trusted Computing. The term is intentionally misleading. It does not try to improve the security of the user, but rather wants to ensure that the user can be “trusted”. Obviously it’s not about the trust, it’s about the money. The companies that deliver content (specially multimedia, but it’s not restricted to media only) to the client want to be able to control the way it is used. For example, they want the content to be displayed on approved media only, banning all the “illegal” applications (illegal does not mean that it violates the law, but rather the agreement between the client and the company that sells the media). More on Trusted Computing can be found (as always) in Wikipedia.

So, what’s wrong with the practice? Why shouldn’t the companies be able to control their content? The idea of DRM has two aspects that are important (and may be dangerous) for computer users. First aspect is technological, the second is ethical. We are going to cover both.

In a nutshell, the technological aspect is that DRM implies that the software, or even worse — hardware — should be manufactured not for the highest stability and performance, but rather for the best copyright protection possible. This means, that we — the users — are supposed to pay more money for a product that is defective (does not allow certain functionality for non-technical reasons) and provides an inferior performance.

Ethical aspect is even more dangerous. In the world of DRM, it turns that we cannot do whatever we want with the legally purchased products (like software, music, videos or text documents). What we can and what we cannot do is decided the provider, not by ourselves. For example, a DRM-protected product can be disabled at any time by the producer if he believes that we violate the terms of the agreement. This means that your collection of “protected” music can be rendered useless (e.g. by decreasing the quality or even deleting the content) in a matter of seconds, without your approval. It that some horrible vision of a sick and evil overlord? Nope. This is an upcoming, terrifying era of DRM.
DRM by example

So, what does DRM look like? Can we see it or is it hidden? Actually, quite a lot of famous companies have already decided that DRM is the way to go. Below we present only a short list of the most popular formats that are affected (tainted) by the “rights protection”:

* DVD — the disk itself does not contain any hardware DRM, but a lot of providers decided to use the restrictions recommended by the DVD CCA organization, such as CSS (content scrambling by using encryption mechanisms) or RPC (region codes).
* HD DVD — the new standard that will probably replace DVDs has been unfortunately tainted by DRM since its creation. The main restriction used is AACS, a modern version of CSS.
* AAC — audio file format invented and promoted by Apple and its iTunes Music Store. In the version with FairPlay (sic!) protection system, it contains DRM-type restrictions (encrypting) aimed at making it impossible for competitive portable players to support this format (AAC works flawlessly only on Apple products like iTunes player or iPod and a few other players approved by Apple)
* Windows Media — each of the media formats of the Windows Media pack (WMV, WMA, WMP or ASF) has been tainted by some kind of DRM, usually meaning that the content is symmetrically encrypted and if the keys are not accessible, the user can watch/listen to only the scrambled version of the content (very low quality).


What is interesting and not widely known, DRM is not restricted to media only. It can be used to secure any other “digital goods”, especially the software. The idea to restrict access to proprietary software using hardware DRM technology is getting more and more popular around major software vendors, like Microsoft and Apple. If this gets implemented, the software producer will be able to, for example, block the use certain programs if they recognize it harmful or illegal. This could mean blocking programs of competitors if they violate the company’s internal rules (e.g. enable the user to play encrypted DVDs or AAC files, even though it is not illegal to do it in the user’s country). Blocking Peer2Peer clients, like eMule or Gnutella (nevermind if used legally or not) could be another option. And there are many more options available, provided that DRM is publicly accepted…
The price of DRM, or… what says Gutmann

Peter Gutmann in his recent publication analyzed the cost of Windows Vista Content Protection with emphasis on the actual cash to be spent for the computer user if these recommendations are implemented by the hardware vendors. The article is interesting, but long and very technical, so I decided to summarize the main points here. If you prefer to read the original article, we strongly recommend you doing so. Otherwise, you can read our short summary, so that you know what we are talking about.

So, what will happen if the Microsoft vision comes true?

* If you have recently bought a high-end sound card you may be surprised, since in Windows Vista you won’t be able to play any “protected content” due to the incompatibility of interfaces (S/PDIF).
* Significant loss of quality of the audio may be common due to the need to test every bit of streaming media for the use of “protected content”
* The idea of open-source drivers will be abandoned since the whole DRM thing is based on the fact that the content decrypting takes place in a “black box” and only a few selected corporations may have a look at it. Security through obscurity, that’s what it’s called. Open source stands in complete opposition to this concept.
* Removing any standards from the hardware world is one of the Microsoft goals. According to the Microsoft theory, each device will need to communicate with the operating system in a unique way in order for DRM work as required. This will enforce the incompatibility of the devices, killing the existing interface standards.
* Denial of Service attacks will be a common place. The new era of DoS attacks will be more harmful than ever before. This is connected with the tilt bits introduced in Windows Vista. The malicious code will be able to use the DRM restrictions in any suitable way and the detection of this activity will be almost impossible if not illegal (sic!) thanks to the infamous DMCA act that prohibits the use of any reverse engineering techniques used to either understand or break DRM.
* The stability of the devices will be decreased due to the fact that the devices will not only have to do their job but also “protect” (who? obviously not the user…) against the illegal use of the audio and video streams. This “protection” requires a lot of additional processing power and of course a lot of programmers man days. Who’s gonna pay for that? Of course us — the customers.
* Issuing the specification by Microsoft seems to be the first case in the history when the software producer dictates the hardware producers how their hardware should be designed and work. Seems dangerous, especially when we all realize the intentions of Microsoft.

The conclusions are rather sad. If the major hardware vendors like Intel, NVidia and ATI take these recommendations seriously and implement them in their products, it may occur that the client will not only get an inferior product (defective by design), but will also have to pay the extra cost of implementing DRM restrictions (the vendors won’t be probably willing to spend the extra costs for something that does not give them any profits).

Update: there has already been a Microsoft response to the Gutmann’s paper: Windows Vista Content Protection - Twenty Questions (and Answers). The advocacy is however very poor. The Lead Program Manager for Video (Dave Marsh) confirmed most of the Gutmann’s conclusions, but presented them as “inevitable” and “providing additional functionality”. The OSNews readers seem to agree that Marsh’s response was basically the act of admitting the guilt

What we have covered so far are only the technical costs of DRM/Trusted Computing in the form proposed by the Redmond giant. The ethical costs of the “innovation” are even more interesting… or rather depressing. Read on.
DRM and freedom, or what says Richard Stallman and FSF

According to Stallman,

DRM is an example of a malicious feature - a feature designed to hurt the user of the software, and therefore, it’s something for which there can never be toleration.

Stallman is not the only person respected in the IT world who believes that DRM is pure evil. Another known DRM-fighter is John Walker, the author of the famous article “Digital imprimatur: How big brother and big media can put the Internet genie back in the bottle”. Walker compares the Digital imprimatur with DRM in the Internet and computing in general.

In Windows Vista it has been decided that the most restrictive version of DRM ever known will be implemented. If the Redmond dreams come true and the large hardware producers also decide to implement the DRM bits in their chipsets, it may lead to the situation in which we — the users, practically won’t be able to decide about our own software of legally purchased media. And this is actually only the beginning of what we can expect if a massive consumer protest against DRM does not begin. In the near future it may turn out that we will not be able to run any programs that violates one of the absurd software patents in the US or any kind of so-called intellectual property (just as if the ideas could have an owner!). And almost everything will be patented or “owner” in some way by that time.

I have a science-fiction vision of the IT underground, where the only hardware not tainted with DRM is made in China and using it is illegal in most of the “civilized” countries. And the only software that allows users to do anything they want with it is (also illegal) the GNU software, developed in basements by so-called “IT terrorists” — Linux kernel hackers, former Novell and Red Hat employees and sponsored by the Bin Laden of the IT — Mark Shuttleworth. Sounds ridiculous? Well, hopefully so. But I don’t think Microsoft and Apple would be protesting when this ridiculous and insane vision comes true…
What is it all about and how can you protect yourself?

So, where is this all heading to? It seems that, for Microsoft, controlling the desktop software market is not enough anymore. Now they try take control of the hardware market as well. Currently only by “recommending” their solutions to external hardware companies. But in the future, if the current pro-DRM lobbying proves successful, it may happen that Microsoft and other big software companies will be dictating how the hardware is designed. And all this — of course in their argumentation — only for securing the end user and protecting the intellectual property of the artists and programmers. This situation is rather paranoid. The hypothetical pact between the software vendors, hardware vendors and the content providers (RIAA, MPAA) could slow down the innovation in the entire IT industry for many years. This would be also one of the first times in the history where certain new technology is introduced not based on the customers’ demands, but rather on the need of large and influential companies. The customers (those aware of their rights) cannot be satisfied by this kind of agreement by no means.

So, how can you protect yourself from this “pact of evil”?

1. First of all — ignore the hardware and software using DRM techniques to restrict the rights of the user. Do not purchase music, movies and other content secured by DRM mechanisms. Instead, use alternative services recommended by the Defective By Design campaign — these are the tools and services DRM-free.
2. Secondly — talk, talk and once again, talk — make your family, friends, co-workers aware of the dangers connected with the use of DRM in the products. This is the best way to educate people what DRM really is and why they should care. Nobody wants to be restricted. When people become aware of the restrictions, they will not buy the products that restrict them. Simple enough


Breaking the DRM — it’s… easy

OK, and what if we have already legally purchased some content (like multimedia or text document) secured by some kind of DRM? Do not worry. Most of them has been broken a long time ago. For example, in order to play an CSS-encrypted DVD under GNU/Linux, you can use almost any player like VLC, MPlayer or Xine with libdvdcss2 enabled (this is a non-licenced library used to decrypt DVDs encrypted with CSS). If you posses music in AAC format (e.g. purchased at iTunes), you can easily convert them to a friendly format using JHymn without losing quality. The story repeats with each and every new introduced DRM technology, like encrypted PDFs, Windows Media, or recently HD-DVD (see the muslix64 post on BackupDVD) and BluRay.

Breaking the DRM restrictions is hard but always possible, due to the fact that all DRM mechanisms need to use symmetric encryption in order to work. This kind of encryption requires the keys to be hidden either in the hardware or software — in both ways it’s possible to access them by the hacker, analyze and find the way to decrypt the data streams. If you are interested in the details of DRM hacking, read the lecture of Cory Doctorow for Microsoft Research about the nonsense of DRM.
OK, but is it legal?

We know that we can break almost any DRM restriction using easily available open source software. But what about the legal part? Is it legal to do this at home? Well, this depends… Depends on where you live actually. For instance, if you have the misfortune of being located in the United States or France, you are prohibited by law to play your legally purchased music or films (sic!) that are secured by DRM if you don’t buy an approved operating system (like MS Windows or MacOS) with an approved media player (like PowerDVD or iTunes). In the US this has been enforced by the DMCA act. In France, a similar act called DADVSI.

Fortunately, in most other countries, it is still completely legal to use free software to break any DRM restrictions, like DeCSS to play your DVDs. What we, as the free software supporters, need to do is to constantly watch the law-makers in our own countries so that they do not try to introduce similar restrictions as in France or US. In Poland, for instance, a protest led by one of the big pro-Linux portals and thousands of computer users made the leading party to abandon the project to introduce a DMCA-like law in Poland. Free-software supporters in other countries, like the United Kingdom go even further and try to completely ban the use of DRM in the British law system.

Of course, breaking the restrictions is fighting the results, not the causes. The real problem is the pure fact that DRM exists and is widely accepted by the (unaware) majority. If the computer users do not unite and protest against including DRM in more and more products, nobody will, and the DRM will become our every-day experience which we will need to fight just like viruses or malware. This year may be the one in which the major decision will be made both by the industry (whether or not to apply DRM in the products) and by the customers (whether or not accept DRM as is). If we miss this fight, we may have to accept what we get. I don’t think we can afford missing it. Do you?

Original article with all links http://polishlinux.org/gnu/drm-vista-and-your-rights/

 

if good ol' G Orwell was around..., Big Brother watching...

terrible times are coming.

 

The DRM story shows the biggest problem with the US goverment...Lobbist...

In California lobbist just got in acted legislation that allow...cities and counties to use iminient domain laws...to forceablly sell property to benefit private individuals and their projects...the project no longer has to provide any benefit to the public...Reason this was done...

So developers could force individuals to sell their property through the legal system...

This never would have happened with-out Lobbist...