Next Generation Emulation banner
1 - 12 of 12 Posts

· Banned
Joined
·
10,931 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Big Content would like to outlaw things no one has even thought of yet


The EFF's Deeplinks section has a pretty alarming post about the RIAA and MPAA's attempts to freeze the progress of consumer electronics technology and then start turning back the clock on all of us. Fair use, meet your successor: "customary historic use."
The post points to broadcast flag draft legislation sponsored by Senator Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) that contains provisions which appear to limit digital broadcast media reception devices to "customary historic use of broadcast content by consumers to the extent such use is consistent with applicable law and that prevents redistribution of copyrighted content over digital networks." In other words, if it does anything heretofore unheard of with the digital content that it receives, then it's illegal. And if it does anything "customary" that could also possibly lead to unauthorized redistribution, then it's also illegal. So all the bases are covered!
Can it really be that bad? We already knew that the proposed HD radio provisions are just awful and absurdly draconian, but can Big Content really be trying to put a blanket freeze on innovation and outlaw any possible novel use at all of copyrighted digital broadcast content? I downloaded the PDF and read through it, and it does indeed look that way. There are a few relevant sections, so let's take a look at them.
Here's the first major section in which the phrase "customary historic use" is used:
(2) CRITERIA FOR CONTENT OF REGULATIONS – In achieving the goal of preventing the indiscriminate unauthorized copying and redistribution of certain digital audio content over digital networks, any proposed regulations to govern digital audio broadcast transmissions and digital audio receiving devices shall –
(a) require Commission licensees that transmit digital audio broadcast signals or that manufacture digital audio receiving devices to implement a Broadcast Flag technology to protect digital audio content;
(b) permit customary historic use of broadcast content by consumers to the extent such use is consistent with applicable law;
(c) not interfere with the deployment and spread of digital audio broadcasting to the maximum extent possible; and,
(d) to the extent that such regulations cover devices, cover only devices that are capable, without any hardware alterations or additions, of receiving digital audio signals when such devices are sold by a manufacturer.
(e) not interfere with the monitoring of or gaining access to musical works contained in broadcasts by performing rights organizations for the purpose of collecting or distributing royalties.
This sounds vaguely ominous, but not truly earth-shattering, mostly because it's phrased positively. Unfortunately, by the time you're done with the document you understand that it's worse than it looks at first.
At issue in the legislation are two types of implementation-agnostic "technologies": 1) a "broadcast flag" technology that's embedded in the digital signal by the sender and that tells the receiver what it can and cannot do with the digital content; and 2) a "secure moving technology" that the draft legislation defines as follows:
(b) "Secure Moving Technology" is a technology that permits content covered by the Broadcast Flag to be transferred from a broadcast receiver to another device for rendering in accordance with customary historic use of broadcast content by consumers to the extent such use is consistent with applicable law and that prevents redistribution of copyrighted content over digital networks."
There's the nub of it. The broadcast flag alone isn't enough, because what happens when you want to actually listen to the audio that the device has received? Unless you've got headphones attached directly to your digital radio, you're going to want to move the signal from the digital radio to a stereo receiver (for "rendering" as the draft puts it), even if you're not necessarily planning on ripping the music and uploading it to eDonkey. This where the "secure moving technology" kicks in.
The "secure moving technology" ensures that whatever you do with the signal that leaves the digital broadcast receiver, it definitely won't be anything you can't already do right now. Furthermore, even some things that you can currently do will be outlawed if those things could facilitate piracy. This probably means that such devices won't have much in the way of hi-fi analog outs.
After you read the above definition of "secure moving technology" and then go further back and look at the first section that I quoted above, that first "customary historic use" passage starts to make more sense and to look more insidious. From reading the whole draft, it appears that the "customary historic use" stipulation governs playback on any device, whether it's an attached device or the receiver itself. The broadcast flag is embedded in the signal like a special tag that defines the content's terms of use, while the secure moving technology acts as a sort of DRM wrapper/sandbox for the content that ensures that any (compliant) playback device not only respects the restrictions dictated by the broadcast flag but also does absolutely nothing novel or unexpected with the content that the broadcast flag's terms did not or could not anticipate.
So, if you were planning to launch a startup and make millions off the coming digital broadcast media revolution by inventing the next iPod or by combining digital radio with Web 2.0 and VoIP and Skype and RSS and WiFi mesh networks, then forget about it. When digital broadcast nirvana finally arrives, the only people who'll be legally authorized to make money off of music and movies are the middlemen at the RIAA and the MPAA.
But I hate to end a post on a sour note, so here's a thought to cheer you up. This "customary historic use" thing reminds me of something I once read in a history of Japan that I picked up on sale at Borders. (I'd give the title, but I'm not at home so I don't have the book handy. It wasn't very good anyway.) At the height of their cultural power, the samurai were authorized to kill peasants for an insane number of reasons, including "acting in an other than expected manner." So look on the bright side: at least we don't live in feudal Japan... yet.
Now this is really scary
 

· Transcended
Joined
·
1,421 Posts
Yeah... I read about the broadcast flag, and more horrifyingly, the "customary historic use". Byt the name alone, this needs no elaboration.

Here's to hoping RIAA/MPAA get a really big negative backlash on this.

I used to have sympathy for RIAA/MPAA because piracy really is a valid concern. But now, I have nothing but disrespect.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
774 Posts
And of course despite their best efforts, this will accomplish absolutely nothing since the pirates will find ways to circumvent these measures easily. Meanwhile the average consumer will have to suffer through all the natsy interoperatability issues that come with DRM technology. The MPAA/RIAA are complete idiots. The only thing all this is actually going to do is to alienate all their consumers. Then when even more people quit buying their crap, they'll come back and blame it on the pirates all over again.

The MPAA/RIAA's era is over, and the days where they can do business in the way they are uccustomed to are nearing their end. It's true that they are not going to go without a fight, but the tighter they squeese their consumers. the more of them will slip through their fingers.

On a side note, what is it going to take to get lawmakers out of the pockets of special interest groups? I am continually disgusted with how often politicians are enacting legislation these days that is clearly not in the best interest of the general populus. Meanwhile the general populus is to afraid to mess with the status quo to do anything about it. Either that, or they just don't care anymore, until it starts to affect them directly.
 

· Emulation Junkie
Joined
·
847 Posts
I guess you guys hadn't heard of microsoft's new copy protection for "approved devices" then.

It's a new technology that's coming out with Blu-ray and HD-DVD that will be a FOUR level copy protection. The first layer is in the disc itself, and is a "software" copy protection. The next 3 layers are "hardware" copy protections. First, the disc drive that reads the disc reads the software protection and tell the gpu that everything is ok. The gpu then reads the video stream and tells the monitor everything is ok. The monitor then receives the ok and displays the video content.

Microsofts recommendation for disc's that aren't "approved"? Either display the info at a much lower resolution, or just show the user a black screen.

I saw this just about a week ago, but I can't find it anymore. Was wanting to provide a link, but oh well.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
774 Posts
Won't work either. You can just rip the DRM chips out of the moniter, do a little reverse engineering, and manufacture chips to capture and decode the signal to a non-protected format. And that's only as a last resort. I'm betting they will figure out away to decrypt the protected streams just using software.

DRM in general is nothing but a scam. Anyone who has a decent grasp of compter security knows that security by obscurity doesn't work, and yet at it's heart that's all DRM is. There is no DRM scheme that can't be cracked or circumvented, and the companies making it know this very well. DRM is really just an excuse to create a closed market for content, under the flag of a corporation that will make millons as the middle man. Kinda like the way the MPAA/RIAA operate now.
 

· Transcended
Joined
·
1,421 Posts
DRM isn't necessarily obscured security.

Anyway, DRM can work, but it needs tighter laws. You see, the reason why DRM fails today is due to lack of infrastructure. Our laws still give much leeway on technology, esp the gray areas. All they have to do push ideas like this into laws and have mainstream technology follow suit. Also, unfavorable rulings/laws on fair-use and privacy issues (starting with allowing spyware like behavior to "protect the interests of content providers"). All it really needs is a catalyst. Remember how the Patriot Act got passed? 9/11.

Of course, one can argue that there will always be alternatives... Linux based systems, etc... but if DRM tech is proprietary, there might come a time when even thinking about how it works would be criminal.

But then, you can also say that the people will not take this sitting down. Again, I point out the Patriot Act. Also, with the level of ignorance present inthe world, it'll take a really massive effort to beat this off.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
774 Posts
Kraelis said:
DRM isn't necessarily obscured security.
In what way isn't it? DRM is only effective when you don't know how it works. Once you figure that out, it's a simple matter to disable or circumvent it. It seems like it fits the definition to me...

Kraelis said:
Anyway, DRM can work, but it needs tighter laws. You see, the reason why DRM fails today is due to lack of infrastructure. Our laws still give much leeway on technology, esp the gray areas. All they have to do push ideas like this into laws and have mainstream technology follow suit. Also, unfavorable rulings/laws on fair-use and privacy issues (starting with allowing spyware like behavior to "protect the interests of content providers"). All it really needs is a catalyst. Remember how the Patriot Act got passed? 9/11.
Breaking DRM is already against the law. The real problem here is that laws are only effective when people choose to obey them. It's just like illegal drug use. Even though you can be sent to jail for having them, they're not hard at all to get ahold of. The more people they put in jail for dealing them, the more new dealers appear. Piracy works the same way. You can fight it all you want, but in the end the stuggle only ends up being futile.

Kraelis said:
Of course, one can argue that there will always be alternatives... Linux based systems, etc... but if DRM tech is proprietary, there might come a time when even thinking about how it works would be criminal.

But then, you can also say that the people will not take this sitting down. Again, I point out the Patriot Act. Also, with the level of ignorance present inthe world, it'll take a really massive effort to beat this off.
Actually, I don't think it would really take that much. All they would have to do is change the DMCA to legalize reverse engineering for the purpose of interoperatability (even if it goes against the wishes of the people who created what your trying to reverse engineer), and the DRM problem will go away. After all, if you can't use it to restrict people from copying content (because the protection will always get broken eventually), and you can't use it to make it inconvienient for people to play back content on any devices but the ones you manufacture, then what's the point of having it in the first place?
 

· Transcended
Joined
·
1,421 Posts
__Xzyx987X said:
In what way isn't it? DRM is only effective when you don't know how it works. Once you figure that out, it's a simple matter to disable or circumvent it. It seems like it fits the definition to me...
Thus, even an open standard system, as long as it's in a form people don't immediately understand (binaries) is an obscured system. However, we know that that's not the case, as PGP is recognized as an open system. Of course, the source is out (I think), but would it have made any difference had it been not open sourced?

But it's a moot point. I can easily imagine a DRM system that requires an active online system to function. Hypothetically, if enough critical portions of the code need to be referenced online, and throw in some dynamism in the mix, it's possible to create a damn stronger content protection system. It also serves as a verification system. Kinda like how it's impossible to directly break the code for let's say WoW.

Of course, such a system would be currently highly impractical as well as possibly stepping on various privacy issues. But I see it as quite a possibility if the conditions of the world change such that it favor such draconian controls.

__Xzyx987X said:
Breaking DRM is already against the law. The real problem here is that laws are only effective when people choose to obey them. It's just like illegal drug use. Even though you can be sent to jail for having them, they're not hard at all to get ahold of. The more people they put in jail for dealing them, the more new dealers appear. Piracy works the same way. You can fight it all you want, but in the end the stuggle only ends up being futile.
That's true. When people refuse to acknowledge the law in large enough numbers, it'll fail to work. But that works in a democratic system. In a more totalitarian, it may have problems working, sans a massive revolt.

Piracy can be fought. Just not how it's being battled currently. However, I do imagine that it can be subdued Big Brother style.

__Xzyx987X said:
Actually, I don't think it would really take that much. All they would have to do is change the DMCA to legalize reverse engineering for the purpose of interoperatability (even if it goes against the wishes of the people who created what your trying to reverse engineer), and the DRM problem will go away. After all, if you can't use it to restrict people from copying content (because the protection will always get broken eventually), and you can't use it to make it inconvienient for people to play back content on any devices but the ones you manufacture, then what's the point of having it in the first place?
That's like saying don't lock your door with a common doorknob since a thief worth his salt can pick it, or don't put a password on your system since a hacker/cracker with enough intent can bore holes in it like swiss cheese.

No don't get me wrong. I hate DRM. Controls make me want to break them even more. I'm just thinking that it's possible that one day, DRM may win. Just because something is wrong, inferior or what not doesn't mean it'll always lose. Betamax anyone? :p
 

· Registered
Joined
·
774 Posts
Kraelis said:
Thus, even an open standard system, as long as it's in a form people don't immediately understand (binaries) is an obscured system. However, we know that that's not the case, as PGP is recognized as an open system. Of course, the source is out (I think), but would it have made any difference had it been not open sourced?
PGP and DRM aren't really the same thing. First of all, they have two completely different purposeses. PGP is a means of hiding data from a third party, who shouldn't be able to view it in the first place. DRM, is a means of controlling the use of data by people who are supposed to be able to view it.

The problem with this is of course, if you want people to be able to view the data, at some point it must be decrypted. Therefore, they must give you the tools neccessary to decrypt it in order for it to be used. All you have to do, is capture the data at the point it is decrypted, and the system is defeated. Realistically, I don't see how you can create a system where data is decodable but not capturable on an open platform such as the PC.

Kraelis said:
But it's a moot point. I can easily imagine a DRM system that requires an active online system to function. Hypothetically, if enough critical portions of the code need to be referenced online, and throw in some dynamism in the mix, it's possible to create a damn stronger content protection system. It also serves as a verification system. Kinda like how it's impossible to directly break the code for let's say WoW.
I doubt WoW's system is impossible to break. Probably just more trouble than it's worth. And in the end, that's really all you can hope for from something like that. At any rate, online verification cannot protect media unless there is some way to keep the data stream from ever being availible to a user in a decoded form. Since at some point the media has to go through an output device which decodes it, this really doesn't seem possible.

Kraelis said:
Of course, such a system would be currently highly impractical as well as possibly stepping on various privacy issues. But I see it as quite a possibility if the conditions of the world change such that it favor such draconian controls.
That does seem to be the way the wind is blowing. The US government really doesn't have any reason left to cater to the common man. It's clear that it has enough power by now that no rebellion would be capable of taking it down. Furthermore, the election system has become a joke. It's nothing more that choosing between two sides of the same coin. So far we have been lucky, in that the goals of the people who truely have power in this country have not conflicted with common people so much that there wasn't plenty of room to placate them. But, if this situation were to change, there wouldn't be much anyone could do to stop it.

Kraelis said:
That's true. When people refuse to acknowledge the law in large enough numbers, it'll fail to work. But that works in a democratic system. In a more totalitarian, it may have problems working, sans a massive revolt.

Piracy can be fought. Just not how it's being battled currently. However, I do imagine that it can be subdued Big Brother style.
Only a totallitarian society would have the power to stop it, but then again a totalitarian society wouldn't need to. There are much easier ways to get people's money that providing them with overpriced entertainment.

Kraelis said:
That's like saying don't lock your door with a common doorknob since a thief worth his salt can pick it, or don't put a password on your system since a hacker/cracker with enough intent can bore holes in it like swiss cheese.
I believe your analogies are incorrect. DRM is more like locking your door, then giving the key to a theif (albiet a somewhat confusing key), and telling him not to use it even though there's about a one in a million chance he will get caught.

Kraelis said:
No don't get me wrong. I hate DRM. Controls make me want to break them even more. I'm just thinking that it's possible that one day, DRM may win. Just because something is wrong, inferior or what not doesn't mean it'll always lose. Betamax anyone? :p
DRM will accomplish it's primary goal, which is to eliminate competition in the digital media marketplace. In terms of protecting content, it will do absolutely nothing.
 

· Transcended
Joined
·
1,421 Posts
__Xzyx987X said:
PGP and DRM aren't really the same thing. First of all, they have two completely different purposeses. PGP is a means of hiding data from a third party, who shouldn't be able to view it in the first place. DRM, is a means of controlling the use of data by people who are supposed to be able to view it.

The problem with this is of course, if you want people to be able to view the data, at some point it must be decrypted. Therefore, they must give you the tools neccessary to decrypt it in order for it to be used. All you have to do, is capture the data at the point it is decrypted, and the system is defeated. Realistically, I don't see how you can create a system where data is decodable but not capturable on an open platform such as the PC.
No no... Backtrack a bit. I was merely emphasizing my point... that a system doesn't necesarily have to be obscured to work as a protection system. PGP, though open, is fundamentally sound. Thus, I don't see it as impossible that an open DRM system might be developed. I wasn't referring to PGP's function.

__Xzyx987X said:
I doubt WoW's system is impossible to break. Probably just more trouble than it's worth. And in the end, that's really all you can hope for from something like that. At any rate, online verification cannot protect media unless there is some way to keep the data stream from ever being availible to a user in a decoded form. Since at some point the media has to go through an output device which decodes it, this really doesn't seem possible.
In the end, security is just a matter of making sure that the cost to break it is greater than the value being protected.

In the WoW example, I said it's impossible to directly break the code, the game, because of the verification system. Here's a clearer example... Battlenet has a centralized system of verifying CD keys. So far, it's proven to be damn effective. Of course, somebody can host in house sessions via Private Servers, but Blizzard allowed such servers and didn't clamp down on them. Also, you can play with a pirated key, just not online. But that's the point... if a system can be created that demands authetication online, perhaps via a strong encryption-level handshaking mechanism, dynamic polymorphic code... etc etc... The only thing stopping this is currently the law and it's interpretations.

__Xzyx987X said:
Only a totallitarian society would have the power to stop it, but then again a totalitarian society wouldn't need to. There are much easier ways to get people's money that providing them with overpriced entertainment.
Well... true. :p

__Xzyx987X said:
I believe your analogies are incorrect. DRM is more like locking your door, then giving the key to a theif (albiet a somewhat confusing key), and telling him not to use it even though there's about a one in a million chance he will get caught.
I think my analogy is correct. They key isn't with the thief still.

DRM isn't completely ineffective. Just as a locked doorknob has served to deter crime to some extent nonetheless... otherwise, nobody'd be locking doors anymore.

I think DRM would be less an issue if it weren't invasive.

Nah.... The rebel side of me refuses to believe that


__Xzyx987X said:
DRM will accomplish it's primary goal, which is to eliminate competition in the digital media marketplace. In terms of protecting content, it will do absolutely nothing.
I does something. It's just not 100% effective at it. Just as a doorknob can't guarantee 100% protection.

Oh btw... why do you say it'll eliminate competition?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
774 Posts
Kraelis said:
No no... Backtrack a bit. I was merely emphasizing my point... that a system doesn't necesarily have to be obscured to work as a protection system. PGP, though open, is fundamentally sound. Thus, I don't see it as impossible that an open DRM system might be developed. I wasn't referring to PGP's function.
Ah, but the functionality really is the key here. The reason PGP can be open and still be secure is because of the nature of it's functionality. As I said before, PGP is used to protect data from being viewed by an unauthorised third party, while DRM is being used to control a users access content which they are in some way being given the ability to view.

With PGP, since the purpose is simply to close out third parties which do not have all the neccesary tools to get past the encryption (the key tool in this case is the decryption key), the system can be secure for the purposes intended. With DRM however, you are not protecting the data from a third party, but rather the people who you want to make able to view it.

The paradox of the situation is, you have to give people the ability to view protected content in order for it to be used. This means everyone who should be able to view it must also be given all the neccasary tools to get past the protection, and into the actual content (either in the form of hardware or software.) Thus, with any open protection scheme it would be trivial to analyze how the content is being unprotected on your system, and duplicate it so as to gain full access to the content in a raw, unprotected form. From there you can simply copy it to any unprotected format, and the protection scheme would be fully defeated.

That is why closed protection schemes are the only practical way of implimenting DRM. By obsfucating the unprotection process, and creating other difficult hurdles to get past in the analysis process (again, both is hardware and software), you can delay the analysis long enough for the system to be somewhat effective. But that's all you can do; just buy yourself time.

Kraelis said:
In the end, security is just a matter of making sure that the cost to break it is greater than the value being protected.
Very true. In DRM the goal is the same, but there is one problem. Most (if not all) current DRM systems are designed so that many people are using them to decode content in roughly the same way. If even one person figures out the scheme, it is broken and completely useless for actually controlling use of content.

The basic idea of a DRM system is to encrypt content using a key unique to your computer, so that when the same protection system tries to play the same file back on a different computer, it will fail. Therefore, the two elements you must know to break the DRM are the key(s) used for encyption/decryption, and how the system uses those keys to accomplish the encyption/decryption. All software DRM applications obsfucate the decoding process as much as possible. But as I've stated before, this is merely security by obscurity, which only works for a limited time before someone figures it out.

A better way is to preform the decoding in hardware, which if done well can make analysis of the actual decoding process almost impossible. But even then, the system still has a weakness. The key(s) used are all that seporate one persons DRM from another. If you can figure out what key works for the given data, and if you are able to feed it into the decoding process, you should be able access the decoded data easily.

In Windows Vista, Microsoft is choosing to use an interesting variation on DRM which should prove a bit more difficult to break: a protected data path. The jist of it is, you never actually have access to the decoded data in software, because it travels through your system in hardware, with each device rencrypting it in in a form that only the next device in the chain understands. For instance, you could have an HD-DVD drive, which rencrypts movie data into a form only a chip on your motherbord can decrypt, which the motherboard chip rencrypts into a form only your sound and video hardware can decrypt, which your sound and video hardware rencrypt into a format only your moniter/speakers can decrypt, which your moniter/speakers decrypt and then output. I'm not sure if that's the exact system HD-DVD movies will use, but I'm betting it's pretty close.

Anyway, with a system like this you end up having no point in which the data can be intercepted by software in an unencypted form. On top of that, since all the encoders/decoders are hardware, analysis of how they work would be very difficult; possibly to the point where it is in fact more trouble that it's worth.

This is, simply put, the most secure DRM system ever concieved of. And yet it still isn't foolproof. The reason? You can intercept the decoding chips in the output devices, and capture the decode signal directly from them. Of course the whole thing has become a considerable hassle, since you would be forced to capture the content in real time as it was decoded, with all the difficulties real-time capture entails. Not to mention the fact you would have to break a perfectly good moniter/speaker system to get the decoding chips out. This puts HD-DVD piracy well beyond the means of the average user. Major piracy groups however, would probably be willing to go through the trouble, so in the end piracy would not be stopped. Oh, and if anyone ever leaked the details on how one of the decoding chips worked (and you can bet there would be plenty of bribes involved), the system would be completely defeated.

So, from all this we can clearly see, there are no implemetations of DRM currently concieved of which make the difficuly of bypassing it outweigh the reward.

Kraelis said:
In the WoW example, I said it's impossible to directly break the code, the game, because of the verification system. Here's a clearer example... Battlenet has a centralized system of verifying CD keys. So far, it's proven to be damn effective. Of course, somebody can host in house sessions via Private Servers, but Blizzard allowed such servers and didn't clamp down on them. Also, you can play with a pirated key, just not online. But that's the point... if a system can be created that demands authetication online, perhaps via a strong encryption-level handshaking mechanism, dynamic polymorphic code... etc etc... The only thing stopping this is currently the law and it's interpretations.
Such authentication schemes are only effective for protecting a server on a network from unauthorised access. It wouldn't be secure in the case of data protection. There is no implementation I can thing of for a data protection system like that that wouldn't make it possible to access the decoded data at some point in software. In any case where you give access to the decoded data with software, any real level of protection is impossible. And even if this weren't the case, the hardware protection method from Vista is still one hell of a lot more practical and secure.

Kraelis said:
I think my analogy is correct. They key isn't with the thief still.

DRM isn't completely ineffective. Just as a locked doorknob has served to deter crime to some extent nonetheless... otherwise, nobody'd be locking doors anymore.
I think I've proven above that there is no case where DRM is completely effectuve at protecting data. Even the most secure implementations have flaws. It may be somewhat of a deterant, but not nearly enough to stop piracy. And wasn't that supposed to be the reason for it's existance in the first place?

Kraelis said:
I does something. It's just not 100% effective at it. Just as a doorknob can't guarantee 100% protection.
But, removing the protection on a single piece of media and putting it on the internet effectively opens the floodgates. Once one person releases something, everyone who wants a copy can get it instantly. In such a case, if a system is not 100% effective then it is worthless.

Kraelis said:
Oh btw... why do you say it'll eliminate competition?
Becuase the people who invent DRM formats get to control which devices are allowed to use them. So of course, any standalone device which supports one format, is not allowed to support formats belonging to other companies. The PC has had software released on it that plays all the major formats, but players which play one type of DRMed file generally won't play any others. If you want the convieniece of only having to use one player, you must adapt to one single DRM format. And whoever's format ends up being the last man standing, will end up with full control of the digital media market, and all the royalty payments they could ever want.
 

· Emulation to the max!
Joined
·
2,624 Posts
We could always go back to records. You know the ginormous disks that predated Cds and tapes. It would be hella hard to make a record copier hehehe. But seriously though this is all blow way out of proportion, things change, and the industry will have to change with it. All I have to say is that DRM formats are useless. I have so many "Copy-Protected" cds that I effortlessly rip to the computer without installing any of the DRM stuff involved.
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top