| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Anti-trusting Microsoft | |
|
||
| Time: 08:10 EST/13:10 GMT | News Source: Red Herring | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
Imagine a Monty Python skit with John Cleese riding on a bus. Out of the blue, he hits the person standing to his left. Stunned, the person says, "You just hit me." "No I didn't," Mr. Cleese responds. A few seconds later, Mr. Cleese hits the person standing to his right. "Hey, you hit me," that person says. "No I didn't," Mr. Cleese insists. A few seconds later, Mr. Cleese hits again. Again, he's accused. Again, he denies. Soon, Mr. Cleese can't move a muscle without everyone around him cowering. He stands to give someone his seat; the person jumps back. He reaches out to help an old lady, and passengers scream. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 305 Last | Next |
The time now is
2:02:39 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 9640 (195.92.168.171) at 9/10/2002 10:19:16 AM |
|
The analogy sounds more fitting as a sketch at the London Palladium (no mocking of Microsoft intended).
For non-British readers: The London Palladium is a famous theater! http://lee.ic24.net/ |
| #2 By 61 (131.247.209.95) at 9/10/2002 10:43:50 AM |
| So called "Fair use" is abused by people who think they have a right to download music or movies and not have to pay for it, and simply, these same people are the ones that attack DRM, in reality, DRM doesn't really change anything unless you are pirating stuff. |
| #3 By 1124 (165.170.128.68) at 9/10/2002 11:52:33 AM |
|
#7 CPUGuy,
I do have a problem with DRM and it has nothing to do with pirating stuff. The new Microsoft Media Center PC allows the user to record tv programs, but If I want to watch that same program in another room I must rip my PC out of my entertainment center and drag it to another room. I have 2 VCRs right now. If I record a program on my vcr in the living room, I can take the tape to my bedroom and watch it. I don't take my copy of ER and try to sell it. I am fine with DRM as it is used today(except for ebooks, which I don't buy), but I am a little worried about the future... |
| #4 By 2960 (156.80.64.132) at 9/10/2002 12:45:26 PM |
|
Bonerific,
I can't comment on Tivo, but I can comment on UltimateTV and DVR's in general. You are doing yourself a disservice if you don't get one for silly reasons, and you can afford to do it. A DVR will completely change the way you 'consume' television. I absolutely guarantee it. Especially if you get one of the DirecTV/DVR combination boxes with dual-LNB inputs. I dread the day I EVER have to go back to watching TV without one. TL |
| #5 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 9/10/2002 1:01:43 PM |
|
TL (#12) Lol, I dread the day I ever go back to watching TV. I'm glad your experience is better than mine, I've just quit altogether.
bob670 (#11) You just don't have a negative opinion of human beings, do you? You must be too old to realize that hundreds if not thousands if not millions of kids will not buy "The Eminem Show" because the downloaded it. In college none of my roommate who downloaded music also bought the CDs. Whether you believe it or not, downloaded music in a method contrary to the copyright holder's permission (and napster, and all gnutellas fall into the non permission category) is illegal. Even if you do buy the album you've already shown your disrespect for the law by downloading it. The music companies are in the business to make money. You've got to be kidding if you think most people with the opportunity to steal annonymously wouldn't do it. Do you really believe that? |
| #6 By 1124 (165.170.128.68) at 9/10/2002 1:44:27 PM |
|
#10 bonoriffic,
The replaytv does have this feature. I found the following at http://www.replay.com/video/replaytv/requirements.asp System Requirements: ReplayTV 4500 requires a broadband Internet connection or a analog phone line. A home network is required for room-to-room video streaming. A PC connection to a home network is required to store and view digital photos with ReplayTV. Nothing wrong with DRM. People should have a right to protect their hard work. The problem is how it is used against people who pay for all their content. I am also hoping everything does not turn into pay-per-view. I want to buy and watch and listen where and when I want. Pirates are bad for all of us, but so is crazy restrictions on media(Remember DIVX). |
| #7 By 2459 (24.233.39.98) at 9/10/2002 2:33:17 PM |
|
#8 - The interface for the hardware portions of Palladium will be public. It will not prevent non-MS software from running on your PC. The *nix and *nux can take advantage of it. Apple could even use for their platforms it if they saw value in it.
The only part of Palladium that will likely not be widely disclosed is Microsoft's software implementation of Windows (and other MS software) features that utilize the Palladium hardware. Palladium is not just going to be for PCs. As I understand it, the hardware technology will be implemented or, at least, can be implemented on a variety of platforms from PDAs to cellphones, to game consoles (I'd look for it to strengthen the security of XBOX 2 among other things). Besides DRM features (which can be implemented with or without Palladium, Palladium adds greater flexibility), the major benefit of the Palladium hardware architecture is its proposed crack resistance. If you can defeat the security of one system, it gets you no where in being able to easily defeat the security of a group of similar systems. Another benefit is its ability to hide pages of memory used by applications so they can't be co-opted by malicious code such as viruses. You can find more info on Palladium, including a FAQ, here: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2002/jul02/07-01palladium.asp |
| #8 By 2459 (24.233.39.98) at 9/10/2002 2:58:43 PM |
|
Some quotes from the Palladium FAQ:
"Palladium" itself is not a DRM system. DRM applications can, however, be built on top of "Palladium." What "Palladium" offers is a way to isolate applications (to avoid snooping and modification by other software) and store secrets for them while ensuring that only software trusted by the person granting access to the content or service has access to the enabling secrets. A DRM system can use this environment to help ensure that content is obtained and used only in accordance with mutually understood set of rules..." Q: OK, so how does "Palladium" differ from the Trusted Computing Platform Alliance (TCPA) http://www.trustedcomputing.org spec? A: The key difference between the two models is the relationship between the security co-processor - the Trusted Platform Module (TPM) in TCPA and the SSC in "Palladium" -and the rest of the PC. In the TCPA model, the TPM is a mandatory part of the boot sequence on a TCPA-certified platform. A TCPA TPM is able to measure (make signed statements about) the entire set of software that is running on a PC. In contrast, "Palladium" is designed to sit side by side with the PC's operating system and does not need to be involved with the boot process of the machine. The use of security features provided by "Palladium," including all functions involving the SSC, is always optional and under the user's control. Q: Some people have claimed that "Palladium" will enable Microsoft or other parties to detect and remotely delete unlicensed software from my PC. Is this true? A: No. As stated above, the function of "Palladium" is to make digitally signed statements about code identity and hide secrets from other "Palladium" applications and regular Windows kernel- and user-mode spaces. "Palladium" doesn't have any features that make it easier for an application to detect or delete files. Q: Can Linux, FreeBSD or another open source OS run on "Palladium" hardware? A: Virtually anything that runs on a Windows-based machine today will still run on a "Palladium" machine (there are some esoteric exceptions1). If you currently have a machine that runs both Linux and Windows, you would be able to have that same functionality on a "Palladium" machine. 1 These exceptions would include the following: Debuggers will need to be updated to work in the "Palladium" environment, but they can still work. Some special performance tools will need to be updated. Software that writes directly to TCPA hardware will need to be updated. Memory scrub routines (at the hardware level) will need attention. Third-party crash dump software may need to be updated. BIOS mode hibernation features will need to be updated to work with "Palladium." More info at http://www.microsoft.com/PressPass/features/2002/aug02/0821PalladiumFAQ.asp This post was edited by n4cer on Tuesday, September 10, 2002 at 15:01. |
| #9 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 9/10/2002 5:04:13 PM |
|
My perspective is that a violation of the law is a violation of the law. I don't care if downloading (pirating) Eminem hurts Marshall Mathers more than Interscope or the other way around. Pirating is a violation of the law. I think that pirating hurts both the artist and the label. Whichever of them owns the copyright should be protected.
I am so tired of the fair use cry. Laughably Napster claimed fair use. The idea is preposterous. Fair use doesn't give near the rights so many people seem to think it does. I'd like to know exactly what ares of fair use as given in section 107 of the copyright law, you feel Microsoft's DRM will limit. Is limiting fair use really to protect you or the media companies? Depends on how you look at it. If a record company folds because its copyrights were violated, then the consumer suffers because they lost the entertainment that company might have produced in the future. Also, I never claimed DRM helps the consumer. It quite obviously helps the copyright owner. I think the copyright owner should be protected, so I don't have any problem with it. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 305 Last | Next |
The time now is
2:02:40 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
