Topic: Protecting copyright is more important than protecting lives.

[Nemesis]

Link to full article

Some background: In light of the Sony-BMG CD incident, Alex and I asked the Copyright Office for an exemption allowing users to remove from their computers certain DRM software that causes security and privacy harm. The CCIA and Open Source and Industry Association made an even simpler request for an exemption for DRM systems that “employ access control measures which threaten critical infrastructure and potentially endanger lives.” Who could oppose that?

In order to protect their ability to deploy this dangerous DRM, they want the Copyright Office to withhold from users permission to uninstall DRM software that actually does threaten critical infrastructure and endanger lives.

I am anti DRM as it only seriously affects the honest user.  Those who misappropriate copywritten materials (commonly though inaccuruately called pirates and thieves) are not affected as they just continue to break the law as they did pre DRM.  Now the RIAA and other such DRM pushers wish the right to knowingly risk lives to protect their copyrights. 

[Just plain old Punisher]

You can remove a lot of those DRM programs that might get installed on your machine. Keep in mind there are a whole lot of clever programmers out there working against any security or anti-copying technology.

[Mr_Tricorder]

You can remove a lot of those DRM programs that might get installed on your machine. Keep in mind there are a whole lot of clever programmers out there working against any security or anti-copying technology.

Once you do that, you cease to be an "honest user" and become a "pirate" (Arrr!  Sorry, couldn't help it).  The goal of anti-DRM-minded people (such as Nemesis and myself) is to make the companies who use DRM realize that DRM in it's present state hurts honest consumers and either forces them to accept getting ripped off (or worse) or to take up software piracy.

I admit that I have delved into bypassing DRM on occasion through less than legal means, but I would much rather be an honest user.  I simply don't like getting ripped off (or put at risk, like in the article), especially by a major corporation that makes hardware or software that I have to use on a daily basis.

[Just plain old Punisher]

No, I could care less about copying software. I don't want the programs installed on my system simply because they take up resources and are a security risk.

It is my system. I will control what and what isn't installed on it. If they don't like it, they can go screw themselves in a corner.

[Nemesis]

No, I could care less about copying software. I don't want the programs installed on my system simply because they take up resources and are a security risk.

It is my system. I will control what and what isn't installed on it. If they don't like it, they can go screw themselves in a corner.

Thus you become the criminal you were always destined to be (according to the RIAA, MPAA and software industry).

Link to full article

Starforce enforces DRM by instant reboot (without warning)

...

This copy protection system installs a driver that runs at the highest level of access on the system, which gives it low level access to the PCs hardware and any drivers and processes.  This driver runs regardless of whether the game runs; keeping an eye out for any suspicious activity such as attempting to copy a protected disc.  If something suspicious is detected, it forces the PC to make an immediate reboot, regardless of any other applications running and whether or not the user has any unsaved work.

...

Finally, as the Starforce protection has been found to interfere with certain device drivers, some drivers will run in legacy PIO mode instead of DMA, which not only slows down the PC by hogging CPU resources, but also slows down the data transfer to the affected hardware.

The Sony Music CD DRM inserted itself into the control chain of your CD so you CD stopped working if you uninstalled the "protection". 

Another article

RIAA lawyers had demanded full access to Tanya Andersen’s computer so that it could prove that she had downloaded files. Anderson claims that she has not downloaded files in her life and has counter-sued the RIAA with a racketeering charge.

Since when do you give the original and ONLY copy of the evidence to the plaintiff?  Can you really trust them not to find evidence whether it was there or not? 

A link to more details on the Tanya case

Ms. Andersen further alleged:

    20. Entering a person’s personal computer without their authorization to snoop around, steal information, or remove files is a violation of the common law prohibition against trespass to chattels.

    21. The record company plaintiffs employed MediaSentry as their agent to break into Ms. Andersen’s personal computer (and those of tens of thousands of other people) to secretly spy on and steal information or remove files. MediaSentry did not have Ms. Andersen’s permission to inspect, copy, or remove private computer files. If MediaSentry accessed her private computer, it did so illegally and secretly. In fact, Ms. Andersen was unaware that the trespass occurred until well after she was anonymously sued.

    22. According to the record companies, the agent, Settlement Support Center used the stolen private information allegedly removed from her home computer in their attempt to threaten and coerce Ms. Anderson into paying thousands of dollars. ....

    Under the provisions of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030) it is illegal to break into another person’s private computer to spy, steal or remove private information, damage property, or cause other harm.

They can hack your system but how dare you violate their sacred copyright?

51. An employee of Settlement Support Center admitted to Ms. Andersen that he believed that she had not downloaded any music. He explained that Settlement Support Center and the record companies would not quit the debt collection activity against her because to do so would encourage other people to defend themselves against the record companies’ claims.

The DMCA:

Provisions of the DMCA
   1. No circumventing digital protections: A ban on circumventing a technological measure or access control technology.
   2. No distribution of devices designed to circumvent digital protections: A ban on trafficking in technology that circumvents access-control measures.
   3. No selling of anti-security tools: A ban on trafficking in technology that circumvents technological protection measures that restrict the ability to copy a copyrighted work.
   4. No removing copyright information: A ban on the alteration of copyright management information.
   5. Safe harbor for Internet service providers: A system for which Internet Service Providers (ISPs) can escape liability for vicarious or contributory copyright infringement.

Number 1 has some potentially interesting effects.  Certain copyprotections can be bypassed by the use of a "Sharpie" marker or the "shift key" on a PC.  In theory they are illegal now.

Consequently, at present, one cannot circumvent digital copy protections, as prohibited by the DMCA, in order to access a copyrighted work for a fair use purpose.

(a)  In General.— Any person who violates section 1201 or 1202 willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain—
(1) shall be fined not more than $500,000 or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both, for the first offense; and
(2) shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both, for any subsequent offense.

Private financial gain can be something as simple as playing the DVD you bought on an unsanctioned DVD player software (under linux say).

Too much power is being given to companies for too long of a time.  Naturally I oppose it however I can.  One way I can is by informing people who may or may not take up opposition as well.

[Bonk]

Not to defend DRM, but:

Mission critical applications should not be run on windows systems period. (Show me a QNX rootkit... ) For that matter, show me a proper implementation of the POSIX extensions on the windows platform...

If a mission critical application must run on a windows system, then certainly no one should be listening to audio CDs or playing games on said system.

I find the thread title inflammatory and inaccurate.

Besides, the latest teenybopper musac on iTunes or uncreative hollywood movie based games could not interest me less.

Nothing can beat a quality turntable, cartridge, tube amp and tuned speakers playing vintage vinyl in mint condition. (these Hip-Hop heathens manually scratching and sampling said vinyl give me the willies...)

[Dracho]

Wasn't there an infamous Urban Legend about a ship that ran on Windows and had to be towed to port on its maiden voyage?

[Nemesis]

I find the thread title inflammatory and inaccurate.

I have to disagree.  In the text of the article it is clearly stated that an exemption for breaking DRM was proposed for situations where active DRM would endanger lives and it was opposed on the grounds that interpretting when that should be allowed would be confusing.  That to me clearly states that to certain copyright holders lives are less important than their copyrights.

To more clearly state it would take longer than the allowed subject line.  If you can propose a subject that would fit and still clearly indicate that stance I would happily edit my subject to match.

Not to defend DRM, but:

Mission critical applications should not be run on windows systems period. (Show me a QNX rootkit... ) For that matter, show me a proper implementation of the POSIX extensions on the windows platform...

If a mission critical application must run on a windows system, then certainly no one should be listening to audio CDs or playing games on said system.

I would agree on mission crititical services should not be on Windows.  Most mission critical software these days operates on a server (and should be on a dedicated server with no other apps).  What such server software needs a GUI on the server?  On the client side I could see it being useful but rarely on the server side.

However what do you do when your mission critical system is itself protected by DRM that could fail and endanger lives?  Should you be able to break the DRM to protect the critical system (thereby protecting lives) or should you have to leave lives at risk?  What about DRM built into the hardware of the server (hardware DRM in computers is beginning to show)?  Should you be allowed to deactivate hardware DRM?  Microsoft doesn't want you to be able to deactivate hardware DRM because if you can't then you can only boot an OS that is recognized and allowed by the hardware (a commercial OS not the Linux distribution du jour). 

DRM is being pushed by software companies, the RIAA and the MPAA.  DRM allows those who control copyrights to restrict you from using rights that were granted to you by copyright law.  Laws like the DMCA allow those coporate restrictions to have the force of law themselves.  I don't think that companies should be allowed to rewrite copyright laws to suit themselves by putting DRM on their copywritten products.  At present relatively few people are aware of DRM or have been bitten by it.  Right now DRM is just beginning.  Right now is the time to fight it.

[Just plain old Punisher]

I hate sneaky programs that gobble up my system resources. From dumbass autoupdate programs ( I disable windows auto update) to tray programs installed by quicktime or real player.

Unless they want to pay me for my computing time, I'll remove from my computer what I wish

[Nemesis]

I hate sneaky programs that gobble up my system resources. From dumbass autoupdate programs ( I disable windows auto update) to tray programs installed by quicktime or real player.

Unless they want to pay me for my computing time, I'll remove from my computer what I wish

CRIMINAL!!!  The RIAA will get you. So will the MPAA and the BSA!!   YOU'RE DOOOMED!!.

[Just plain old Punisher]

I'll just upload some child porn to the RIAA computers, and the problem will go away.

[Nemesis]

I'll just upload some child porn to the RIAA computers, and the problem will go away.

The MPAA pirating a movie didn't make them go away and they even admitted the piracy so I don't see how your kiddie pics will make the  RIAA change.