Why Anti-Circumvention Laws Are Evil: Hollywood Gets To Veto DVD Jukebox, Despite Complete Lack Of Infringement
from the why-do-we-let-this-happen? dept
As mentioned, it looks like Canada's new copyright law will include the "digital locks" provision, which is more accurately described as giving Hollywood a veto on any technology it doesn't like. If you haven't followed the specifics, the "digital locks" provision is an anti-circumvention rule that makes it against the law merely to break a "digital lock" (i.e., to route around any form of DRM, no matter how weak) even if (and this is the important part) you are breaking the digital lock for perfectly legal reasons. For reasons that I still cannot comprehend, Hollywood has insisted that anti-circumvention provisions -- even if there's no infringement -- are of utmost importance. If it was really about protecting against infringement, they would make it clear that the anti-circumvention provisions only apply in cases where copyright law is broken.The real reason why they want anti-circumvention even when there's no copyright infringement is because it gives them a veto on any new technology. All they have to do is put in some sort of weak digital lock and suddenly the company has to "negotiate" a deal or they can be sued out of existence.
This is not theoretical. In fact, we now have yet another very real example of Hollywood's ability to kill a technology that only has legal uses thanks to the absolute nature of the DMCA's anti-circumvention clause (on which Canada's law was modeled). We've written about Kaleidescape a few times in the past. The company makes super high end DVD jukeboxes, that allow people to take the DVDs they own and store digital copies on a home (not internet-connected) server, to make it easier to watch those movies. The company has gone to amazing lengths to prevent its product from being used for infringement. Here, I'll let the company explain the details directly:
Kaleidescape has carefully designed its products to protect the rights of content owners. The hard-disk copy of each DVD retains all of the DVD CCA's scrambling and adds more encryption. The Kaleidescape System is a closed system that prevents DVDs from being copied to the Internet, to writable DVDs, or to computers or mobile devices. Furthermore, you cannot download a pirated movie from the Internet to a Kaleidescape System.At one point, the company even went to such ridiculous extremes that it required users to put the DVD in the jukebox any time it wanted to play a movie from it -- effectively taking away the device's entire purpose, just to appease Hollywood.
Every Kaleidescape customer must agree to copy only the DVDs that he rightfully owns, and must reaffirm this agreement upon copying each DVD. Kaleidescape Systems identify rental discs and prevent them from being imported. This combination of business practices and technology has been so effective that after years of searching for evidence that Kaleidescape's customers use their systems to steal content, the DVD CCA admitted in writing that Kaleidescape has done no harm to any of the motion picture studios, and was unable at trial to show any harm to the DVD CCA itself.
And, none of it mattered. A court has issued an injunction against Kaleidescape selling these devices (pdf and embedded below). The specifics of the case revolve around questions of whether or not Kaleidescape breached the specific CSS license agreement that covers the DRM found on DVDs (which, again, Kaleidescape not only retains but enhances in its product). But that license agreement only has force because of the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA.
In other words this product, which can only be used for legal means -- and for which there has been no proof presented (ever) that it was used to infringe -- has been killed by a court... thanks to Hollywood's veto on this technology.
And the amazing thing is that all this does is make things worse for Hollywood. Considering how much Hollywood has been whining about DVD sales falling lately, a device like this only serves to make DVDs more valuable, meaning they would sell more.
Kaleidescape was founded in 2001 to bring consumers a fantastic experience for enjoying their movie collections. The Kaleidescape movie server makes digital copies of DVDs and Blu-ray Discs to hard disk drives so families can play back their movies instantly from any room of their home. A movie starts directly from the beginning, without forcing the family to endure advertisements, trailers, and confusing menus. With the company's wide-ranging innovations, customers can jump directly to the greatest scenes and songs in movies and concerts, and small children can start their movies all by themselves.But thanks to digital locks and anti-circumvention rules, such a product got voted out of existence by the very industry it would help the most.
[....]
Over the years, Americans have amassed over 13 billion DVDs and Blu-ray Discs – about 110 per household. This means that many American families have a few thousand dollars tied up in a library of movies they hoped to enjoy over and over. However, with collections that size, families soon realize that it takes so long to find what they're looking for that it just isn't worth buying more discs. This frustration has led to a well-publicized 58% decline in revenues from the sale of DVDs since 2006.
The Kaleidescape System eliminates that frustration. Because it's so easy and fun for Kaleidescape customers to enjoy their movies, they start buying movies again, and with a bigger appetite. The average Kaleidescape family owns 506 movies on Blu-ray and DVD.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: anti-circumvention, copyright, digital locks, dvd jukebox, dvds
Companies: kaleidescape, mpaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Only two things are infinite, the universe, and Hollywood's greed"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I thought it was Al Gore...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Given their history of comments and lies here on techdirt and their previous history in general, this is only expected.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not just greed but avarice...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seeing that plenty of websites have terms that require you to upload only material you have the rights too, and yet are packed with pirated material... it seems like an empty promise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I can think of many uses for the screwdriver, but I cannot think of too many uses for the DVD jukebox besides being a great way to store your pirated movies, or to more quickly rip the rental movies that your buddy got last night.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'd like to point him toward a resource that would show him where that reference comes from, but he's presumably of the ilk who also believes that the public domain is somehow stealing...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Fuck I really hate discussions with incompetent morons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Lets all buy a Raspberry Pi B and make something that is more powerful and can have multiple uses, not just one, although that DVD jukebox could be hacked to be much more the price probably isn't right, it is after all a computers with storage space attached that is all it is.
Brilliant thinking you there, lets ban all one time devices that have one use from the market and make it impossible for yourself to create a walled garden too LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Watching the hundreds of DVDs I already legally own in a convenient manner. But I suppose it's too complex for you to work out that the people you're attacking are legal customers... yet again...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Mp3 players.
Pseudoephedrine.
Alcohol.
Tobacoo.
Rat Poison.
I could go on for days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Do you mean like how we're all told to do our own taxes so long as we promise to be good?
Do you mean like how we're all allowed to drive around metal boxes weighing over a ton at significant speeds so long as we promise to be good?
Do you mean like how we're all allowed to purchase ammonia and chlorine (at the same time no less) so long as we promise to be good?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Where? I bought some a couple weeks ago and walked out after paying without signing anything. I'd stay away from the places that treat you like a toddler.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
They still put CSS on DVD's when they know it has been broken by the "bad" people. They continue to pay for a system that has been bypassed and offers them no protection whatsoever, then complain that people are bypassing it.
They keep providing content without actual protections and are "SHOCKED" that people find ways to bypass it, because there is a law that says even a worthless lock means you can't make your legally authorized backup.
If they were actually serious about cracking down on DVD "piracy" they would withdraw the flawed product from the market.
So in this case I guess the justification for the business model is but but "piracy", that they totally could stop and opt not to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes it is Hollywoods fault for holding onto the notion that they can change the will of their customers and stop them from consuming Hollywoods product without asking for permission first. This is like standing in front of a tsunami with an umbrella to hold back the water. It just will not happen no matter how hard you try.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Good thing the skill level and willingness to destroy the device is also only in a few.
Don't kill ideas because you fear the few. The jukebox is something I would buy. I have so many DVD's that it would be very useful to me. I had On Demand and prefer my own collection. So make it happen and I'd likely BUY MORE MOVIES.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SYNECDOCHE! strikes back
Huh, and I had been thinking the thing that was noteworthy about requiring all users to sign this agreement was that the requirement is in addition to doing most everything short of attaching a TASER� Shockwave� to the product to take down anyone who even thinks about using infringing media with it. Silly me!
I am glad someone pointed out the truly relevant point here. :P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[CORRECTION: "SYNECDOCHE! strikes back"]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
More than anything else this article highlights the stupidity and greed of the studios.
Stupidity because there are literally hundreds of software products that will do exactly this for you just fine, better in fact, and without all the restrictions and well within the competance of even a basic computer user. Here is a company that's TRYING to put as much protection in as possible, far MORE protection in fact than hollywood ever added, trying to play the studio's game and GIVE THEM A CHANCE AT MAKING MORE MONEY by making their product more valuable. Do the studios embrace it? Do they say "thank you for making our irrelevant plastic discs vaguely relevant again"? No, instead they AGAIN leave anyone who wants this kind of functionality no legitimate route just hundreds and hundreds of illegitimate ones. That has to be the very epitome of stupidity - literally making criminals out of customers.
As for greed, it again makes it clear that the studios want and expect to control every single thing about a movie forever, trying to dictate when and how you can watch it, who with, what equipment you can use, how often you're allowed to watch it, whether you're allowed to think about it or offer an opinion on it. What's next? Specially sanctioned "official popcorn"?
I can only assume you yourself work for a studio. Noone else could be THAT deliberately obtuse about what this company has tried to do, can they?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Trolls
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Let's try this ONCE more: We are talking about a product here that does it's level best to FORCE you to BUY a DVD first in order to use it and Hollywood thinks this is a BAD idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://media.treehugger.com/assets/images/2011/10/brick_wall.jpg
I you wish, you may try and argue with it instead, as it is abundantly clear that it is both more intelligent than this troll/shill, and probably more open to other ideas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They don't care, the only thing they care about is themselves. Their own campaign contributions and the revolving door nice job that they get after leaving office.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kaleideswho?
Or I can just download/RIP content that can be run from my network on any damn device I choose.
And before the greedtards say oh that's illegal I ask, how many of you did 55, and came to a complete stop at stop signs today? And say F you greedtards, Ill do what I damn well want with my DVD/Music collection.
Yet another nail into the coffin that is the entertainment industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Kaleideswho?
I am letting you know that I will be infringing your copyright on this word for the rest of my life. And you will probably lose lots of money because of it. Or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Kaleideswho?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just use Handbrake
Now we shouldn't be criminalized for doing this, but it is a risk I am willing to take.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just use Handbrake
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just use Handbrake
This was an interesting and relevant case though.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/10/judge-suggests-dmca-allows-dvd-ripping-if-y ou-own-the-dvd.ars
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Awesome
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Awesome
You know, if I had a time machine, I'd be tempted to use it to go to the past to change their fate in the VCR case. Then I could return to the future and see how much less powerful and wealthy Hollywood was.
I personally believe that if they'd have gotten their way with VCR restrictions Hollywood might be making an entire order of magnitude less money today than they currently are.
The VCR example is such a good example of how mindblowingly stupid the entertainment industry is.
If CD's had had encryption when they were introduced the music industry would have done this same thing to MP3 players. This would mean, no iPod, which would mean no iPhone, no iPad, no Android phones, no Android tablets, no iTunes, no Amazon Digital Music store. The outlook for digital music would be bleak, bleak, bleak. And the music industry would actually be dying instead of pretending to be....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE: Changing the outcome of the VCR case
Sounds like a job for the Space Traveler Who Can Also Travel Through Time!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hollywood's remaining life
I pose the same question for the RIAA and MPAA as well. For those who have done the question, please answer.
I would like a rough estimate of how much longer these abuses will continue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hollywood's remaining life
Don't fall for it, thats what they want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hollywood's remaining life
Given the amount of money they have to spend and their unabashed tunnel vision, they will put us back to 1950 in user devices to be had.
Given all of the licensing fees they have in place now and want to do as soon as possible, they could easily make a draconian future for all of us and be happy about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hollywood's remaining life
I can't wait to pay extra to add color to my movie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hollywood's remaining life
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hollywood's remaining life
And, as Mike has pointed out repeatedly, they don't want to make money. They fear losing control, because then they lose everything. And it's inevitable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hollywood's remaining life
The future is here! All that you say is can be, and is being, done right now, today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hollywood's remaining life
I just wish they would find a way to have people cheering them on, instead of seeing them as the evil empire. I really believe they could do it if they wanted to.
That and the government caring about the people would be cool too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hollywood's remaining life
The best way would be to stop being an evil empire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hollywood's remaining life
They already can. Those movies don't make enough money to challenge Avatar, however, so are often ignored by the industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hollywood's remaining life
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hollywood's remaining life
In terms of a Hollywood movie with a bit of a brain, I was quite impressed with Rise Of The Planet of The Apes ($93 million budget) last year, although I'll admit my initial expectations were low. But even that made only half the gross of Transformers 3, as mindless as they come...
That's kind of the problem. Hollywood is obsessed with numbers, and even something like Girl With the Dragon Tattoo somehow costs $90 million (the original Swedish movie cost just $13 million). By the time you get to Avatar numbers, where virtually every shot has CGI and special effects techniques were being developed specifically for the film, you're going to get movies aimed squarely at the lowest common denominator - i.e. mostly mindless.
There's plenty of decent lower budgeted and independent movies out there to find, it's just that you'd never know it from the amount of money spent by the majors to push their latest blockbuster - and even that backfires (e.g. John Carter looks to be a massive flop). Lower budgeted movies get to both experiment a bit more and treat their audience like thinking adults, on top of not needing to make obscene amounts of money just to break even.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hollywood's remaining life
And I'd pick the "low budget" original over the Hollywood remake in a heartbeat. Same with Nikita vs Assassin and a hoard of others. It sometimes seems that everything Hollywood touches turns to braindead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hollywood's remaining life
I think the price difference mainly represents just how full of themselves Hollywood is and the fact that they are off in their own fantasy land detached from reality and practical considerations.
We need another Nexus. Current tech may make it possible. Although they may need to "flee from Edison" first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hollywood, An Empire of Their Own
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2YZws9xYEQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnFvYgg bw-8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpfMW-rVBsQ&feature=related
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Customer: But all I did was remove the plastic wrap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Most software from the 1980s can't be copied without circumventing the DRM, which means that it can't legally be backed up. Considering that most software was sold on floppy disks which will eventually fail, there's now no legal way to preserve that software.
The Xbox uses a standard IDE hard drive, but you can't replace it unless you also mod the system, which is illegal under the DMCA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Then there was like some lawsuit.
Then the media companies got ahold of it, turned it into a giant joke, then I think it got turned off and locked a buncha their users out of their "purchased" music licenses or something...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
My friend actually gave me one a couple weeks ago. He found it at the dump and didn't want it (he's an older, technophobe). At least I'm pretty sure it hasn't been modded due to the fact that at least one of the screws is hidden under the labels on the underside and all the labels are still intact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WalMart and UV
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WalMart and UV
Just for fun fellow high lord piracy apologists (Yes I still love that):
http://music.ign.com/articles/718/718259p1.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: WalMart and UV
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WalMart and UV
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kaleidescape
the case was NOT about copyright, or hollywood, or studios, or anything like that.
it was about a contract dispute with the guys who hold the keys to DVD encryption. in order for K to build a legal system, they needed to legally use those keys. they examined the contract, they saw no issues, so they signed up and then built their system.
the tricky part is that the main contract you cannot see until you sign up for it with the "lite" contract. and the lite contract does not state that you can do certain things. but the detailed contract does state that you cannot do them. so K has been in a legal battle over these keys due to the fact that what they are doing is not prohibited by lite contract. and since it is the one you sign to get into the party, they argue that the additional details required by the full contract are not valid.
however at the end of the day, as much as everybody WISHES this was about content, or copyright, or hollywood... it is not. it is simple contract law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Kaleidescape
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Kaleidescape
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Kaleidescape
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Kaleidescape
This "contract dispute" would be irrelevant.
This device is a very expensive way to work around the fact that cheaper and more effective tools are blatantly illegal and would be chased off the market.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm in for a fight
Its time to fight back, comments and opinions on issues just don't cut it anymore. We have the power, when we fraught SOPA we saw how big that power is when websites censored their content in order to raise awareness on the issue lets tweak that concept a bit. What if instead of censoring all the people from a website we could just censor by IP.
You have an IP from the Hollywood area/city redirect to static page: message Hollywood tries to censor the internet and my access to free speech, I'm censoring Hollywood you are a casualty of this war f you.
Hollywood is just an example and we should not limit ourselves to that we should include capitals where governments take these stupid decisions.
That will be fun, I would like to see a governors face when he wants to read an article an a blog that one of his friends sent him a link to it and get a big f you on the screen. Ahh priceless....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm in for a fight
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think you all missed the key reaon
This is why the Kaleidescape had to die. If products that are legal (which this obviously was) *and* allow people, en mass, to skip all the cruft, then the value of that kruft drops significantly.
The movie distributors are PAID to put that kruft on the DVD and force the viewer to sit through it. It's a major part of the profit made on the DVDs. As the number of eyeballs guaranteed to see that kruft drops through the use of such systems as the jukebox, the price the distributors can charge drops.
It all comes back to business models predicated on control of the viewer and control of the distribution channel. You are not the consumer, in this case, you are the product.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
circumvention not always absol... oh, wait, nevermind...
Sorry, wait, well, there are exemptions, but only if the Librarian of Congress says it's oka...
No, no; hold a sec... only if the Librarian of Congress agrees after receiving a recommendation from the Register of Copyrights reques...
Ummm... (Wow, there's a lot of stuff in there, hold on, I'll get it...) Oh, okay, so: if the Librarian of Congress says it's okay after having received a recommendation from the Register of Copyrights, after consulting with the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information of the Department of Commerce, then you can... oh... sigh...
Okay, got it this time: if the Librarian of Congress says it's okay, after having received a recommendation from the Register of Copyrights, who, after having consulted with the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information of the Department of Commerce, then reports and comments on his or her views leading to the recommendation, then, finally the exempt...
wait, almost there...
Actually it's: if the Librarian of Congress (after having received the recommendation from the Register of Copyrights, who consulted with the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information of the Department of Commerce and reported and commented on his or her views leading to the recommendation) makes the determination, in an on-the-record rulemaking proceeding, that persons using a copyrighted work are adversely affected (or are likely to be so within a 3-year period) by the anti-circumvention rule [wait, wouldn't that actually be anyone that wanted to do formerly allowed things, like making backups, or playing things on alternate players, or scores of other things?] while considering various factors listed in the law plus the Librarian's own judgement... THEN it's perfectly okay to circumvent the measure... Well, for the next three years, until the next round of rulemaking begins.
Sheesh and some of you guys act like the DMCA restrictions on circumvention are, like, onerous and set in stone or something... ;) :P
[And, don't give me that bull about how bad it is that they've put in this requirement for a proceeding etc. that prevents all you freeturds from just circumventing away and then pretending that it's okay just because you otherwise would have had a legal justification for your actions... I mean, really, why wouldn't you want the law to make sure that a further political hearing is required to affirm that you are actually adversely affected by being unable to exercise your rights due to DRM? Hell, maybe you're better off... builds character... um, uphill, both ways... y'know, get out and get some exercise or something instead of just sitting there circumventing all day. ;)]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: besides, current measures don't "effectively" contr... no, nevermind...
Oh, my bad, "effectively control" just means that the protection measure requires, "to gain access to the work," either the "application of information, or a process or treatment" with the authority of the copyright owner. [sheesh, so basically it sounds someone could provide a static serial number, "1", and require that you enter the "1" to gain access, and if you enter "1" without having permission you would be in violation of the anti-circumvention measures. amirite? ahh well, no matter.]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
All of the document sharing sites seem to be doing this after what happened to Megaupload. It seems like the government is destroying every bit of the Internet. Now there is no where people can freely share documents, it's too expensive thanks to copyright laws. This is ridiculous, there is no one place we can easily archive public domain or permissibly licensed documents anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the start of something big
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the start of something big
Without a sea change in the way people view the government, I see little hope of things getting better near-term. Mid- to long- term, however they will screw up like all large bureaucratic organizations, and fall as inevitably and at least as hard as did the Berlin wall...
That could take some time though, so I'm working towards educating people for the sea change. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seriously, Hollywood needs to get it's head out of it's ass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1- http://www.newegg.com/Store/Category.aspx?Category=3&name=Barebone-Mini-Computers
2- http://www.havetheknowhow.com/Configure-the-server.html
3- http://www.doom9.org/
4- ???????
5- Profit
Notice that 2 was obtained by googling "building a linux media server" without "" and 3 is a site I've used before but you can always google your way on ripping DVD's for free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ReDigi and flexible file-sharing DRM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]