Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 6 May 2013 @ 12:01pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A Bit Upset With Netflix Here
They could try encrypting the content with their customer's public keys, so the customers can then decrypt it with their private keys, but then you have to re-encrypt the content for every purchaser, and you still haven't solved the main problem: the consumer can decrypt the content at will.
I never said it would be easy, or scalable, to implement an effective DRM system that keeps keys secret up until the analog hole, only that it is possible. And yes, the problem for all DRM systems is that the customer must be able to decrypt the content for it to be useful.
It's not a fault with encryption, and even some implementation methods, that inevitably cause all DRM systems to fail. It is because in order for the content to be useful, it must be decrypted and then is susceptible to copying.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 6 May 2013 @ 11:56am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I know it's not a popular view here, but...
Think bigger. If I was rich, I'd buy a small island internationally recognized as a sovereign country, wire it up and set up a data haven. Then for redundancy, I'd do it a few more places around the world.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 6 May 2013 @ 10:46am
Re: Re: Re: I know it's not a popular view here, but...
but it doesn't answer the question of how to provide a streaming service that doesn't quickly become a really-cheap downloading service.
The difference between "streaming" and "downloading" in a technical sense is only 'how long the content stays in computer memory'.
Preventing everyone from being able to capture a stream of sound or video on a general purpose computer is not technologically possible. And even if it were, you still have the analog hole - there's no way to stop someone from recording it with another device. In order for music or video content to be useful to humans, it needs to be viewable/listenable to humans and that makes it susceptible to being copied, and thus any attempt to make it less viewable/listenable ends up making it less useful and as such is folly.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 6 May 2013 @ 10:26am
Re: Re: Re: I know it's not a popular view here, but...
I guess it makes the content owners happier to not have their streaming content trivially easy to save.
But it doesn't do that. It never has, and never will (at least without western democracies going all the way down the police state path).
What it does do is tie us up into compatibility issues. Instead of the tired old "This page best viewed in Internet Explorer 6" experience we suffered through, this turns it into "This page ONLY viewable on devices approved by the copyright owner."
It's not everyone's a winner - it's no-one is a winner.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 6 May 2013 @ 10:07am
Re: Re: Re: A Bit Upset With Netflix Here
DRM products will always be proprietary. They have to be in order to work as intended.
This is not strictly true. I think you're confusing keeping the source code or implementation secret, and keeping the encryption keys secret.
It is quite possible to have a fully open source DRM system, so long as asymetric keys (public/private key pairs) are used. The vector to then attack those types of DRM systems becomes determining the private key used to encrypt the data. The biggest DRM failures involving keys you've probably heard about (Blu-Ray, Sony PS3, DVD CSS) are instances where poor implementation (open or not) left the private keys easily recoverable.
(All that said, its still a horrendously bad idea supporting DRM within HTML5.)
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 3 May 2013 @ 12:23pm
Re:
This isn't hard to understand. The networks get paid lots of money for licenses. If Aereo isn't paying, everyone else who is will wonder why they're still paying. Simple stuff. Glad you're seeing it now.
I've seen it that way for years. The difference between you and I is that I encourage people to question why they're doing something, especially if there is a better way to do it, whereas you seem to think that everyone should keep doing it without thinking critically.
Are re-transmission fees fundamentally a good thing for society? If you say yes, please provide your reasoning. My answer is no, whether it is the cable company or Aereo being told to pay it. The network is already broadcasting advertisements and getting paid that way, thus retransmission is increasing the reach of that advertising (and what they can charge advertisers), so additional fees are double-dipping (and charging twice for the same thing is inefficient). Adding additional transaction costs for copying infinitely copyable stuff is another inefficiency. Artificially limiting who can see or access your content, especially when it costs you nothing to allow it, and you are using your content to sell advertising, makes utterly no sense.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 3 May 2013 @ 9:51am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
then how is it that the lawyers that write these contracts don't include language that prevents these practices?
Simple - the studios won't make the deal if they can't get the language they want into the contract. There's probably plenty of investors out there that want "to make a movie" bad enough to be sloppy or gullible, not hire a competent lawyer, or have been convinced (possibly by their own lawyer) that its "standard boilerplate contract language" and nothing bad will happen. It's no different that new artists that don't know any better being convinced into signing completely one-sided record label contracts.
The investors smart or careful enough to see what a farce it is don't get into the deals, since they realize they easily would have a higher ROI by fronting cash to some math prodigy to beat the house in Vegas, betting on the Astros (are they still a MLB team?) to win the World Series, or simple burning their cash for warmth in the winter.
Maybe you should take a step outside your legal theories to understand how the real world works.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 3 May 2013 @ 9:02am
Re:
Can you point to any evidence
Why bother with evidence. We have accusations. If you can assume that DMCA complaints automatically mean infringement, and grabbing an IP address out of a torrent tracker autmatically means the account holder of that IP is responsible for sharing a copyrighted work, then all we need to do is accuse Hollywood of corrupt accounting practices and we're right.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 1 May 2013 @ 12:21pm
Re:
When the bar is that low, I'm glad that the Patent Office can manage not to trip over it.
Let's remember, this guy was looking for a patent on a lawn sprinkler. A few pieces of plastic or metal to connect to a hose so you can spray a wide area with water - something that has been done for as long as there has been water running through pipes. A patent from 60 years ago is nearly identical to what he was trying to patent.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 1 May 2013 @ 10:48am
Re: Re: Re:
What are you trying to argue? I can only think of one way to interpret your statement, and it goes something like:
"If the bitpattern of a song and a random bitpattern cost effectively zero, then they are interchangeable."
My response would be that you are confusing price and value. The value of a random bitpattern is different from the bitpattern of a song. The value is also different to different people. That's pretty much the basis of economics.
If that's not what you're arguing, please correct me and be clear in what you are conveying.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 1 May 2013 @ 6:55am
Re:
Offering songs a la carte for $1.29 or less after you've had an opportunity to preview 90 seconds of it is not a compelling legal offering?
In a word: No.
$1.29, $.99, or even $.79 is not compelling. The price is astronomically high. The only reason it's stuck so far is that for decades, people got used to paying $15-$20 (still greatly inflated, a.k.a. price fixing) for shiny plastic discs. But a copy of a bitpattern, transported over the internet, costs as close to zero as you can reasonably imagine, compared to a physical disc that had to be manufactured/pressed/packaged/shipped/distributed/retailed. The price of an mp3 is also astronomically high when you consider that to fill the capacity of a modern mp3 player or phone at those prices would cost around $16,000 (64GB, 4MB per song, $1 each).
So no, selling a non-scarce bitpattern at a price equivalent to physical items is not compelling. When the entire world could carry around in their pockets the sum total of human knowledge and culture, doing things like they were done in Pony Express days is insane.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 30 Apr 2013 @ 1:14pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What if...
While I think some of that is likely in regards to actual lawsuits, how does that help deal with the extortinate tactics used by trolls against small businesses (ie Lodsys or that network scanner troll)? How are those businesses to know that the threat letter demanding thousands of dollars (or take your chances hiring a lawyer for tens of thousands or more) is using a patent that has not been reviewed or examined in any way before being granted?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 30 Apr 2013 @ 12:48pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just so I'm clear on the absurd bit, there may be some legitimate cases over counterfeit products, but certainly to to the extent as is portrayed, and I can think of no reason why someone selling bootleg DVDs or unofficial NFL jerseys should be arrested and locked up.
If a pharma company or the FDA wants to sue someone trying to pass off counterfeit drugs (actual counterfeit - not gray market imports that are legit), I'm fine with it - but the SWAT tactics and seizures prior to an adversarial hearing are insane and I believe a violation of due process. If the NFL wants to go after someone for trademark violations making unofficial jerseys and show both damages and that people were deceived into thinking they were official, fine, but again locking people up over that is crazy, you don't need armed SWAT, and seizures prior to adversarial hearings should be against everything we stand for.
The wider issue we need to consider is why those operations exist in the first place. And it comes down to the monopoly holders not serving their customers, potential customers, or overall society by providing convenience, reasonable pricing, and quality service. All the gung-ho SWAT raids and seizures for anything that is not at risk of evidence destruction are only treating symptoms of the real problem and will not solve a damn thing.
And that's why all of the examples given are absurd.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 30 Apr 2013 @ 12:18pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The losers selling bootleg dvd's, phony Viagra and counterfeit NFL jerseys get locked up, raided, arrested, etc. all of the time.
Those are equally absurd.
It's the same set of laws and it is a criminal infraction.
So you're claiming that bootleg DVDs (copyright violation), phone Viagra (trademark violation), counterfeit NFL jerseys (again, trademark violation), and aftermarket Apple parts (patent violation) are all violations of the same laws? I don't suppose you could specify which ones?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 30 Apr 2013 @ 12:11pm
Re:
consumers have be hurt by overheating phones that were repaired using counterfeit parts
Funny, I've heard more stories about Apple products overheating straight out of the box from Apple than those which have been repaired using non-Apple parts.
Google suggest "macbook o" first result is macbook overheating.
Google suggest "iphone o" eighth result is overheating, and first result from "iphone ov".
If Homeland Security is in charge of protecting us from overheating phones, they're doing about as good a job as the TSA in ensuring that airplanes arrive on schedule.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 30 Apr 2013 @ 11:56am
Re: Re: Re:
patents on the various unique components, not just the phone itself. Those parts are a bit different than a bumper for a Chevy.
That's absurd. Even if Apple thought the repair shop was violating their ridiculously overbroad patents, it is still a civil offense that should be handled by the courts - not with a SWAT team provided by ICE and the federal government.
On the post: Blogger Issues DMCA Notice To Take Down Posts Infringing His 'How To Infringe' Post
Please stop, Mr. Ghoush. You're making us real pirates look bad.
On the post: PSA To Parents: Step 1 After Your Child Is Shot Is Not Checking WebMD
Re: Re:
On the post: John Steele, Silent In Court, Keeps Talking To The Press; Says New Lawsuits Are Being Filed
Re:
You might say that Steele and Livewire are playing with...
high voltage.
On the post: Iraqi Government Shutters Television Stations It Doesn't Like
Re: Re: Re: Re: Are you surprised?
How about Wikileaks?
What about Dajaz1? Rojadirecta?
On the post: The Fight Over DRM In HTML5 Should Represent The Last Stand For DRM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A Bit Upset With Netflix Here
I never said it would be easy, or scalable, to implement an effective DRM system that keeps keys secret up until the analog hole, only that it is possible. And yes, the problem for all DRM systems is that the customer must be able to decrypt the content for it to be useful.
It's not a fault with encryption, and even some implementation methods, that inevitably cause all DRM systems to fail. It is because in order for the content to be useful, it must be decrypted and then is susceptible to copying.
On the post: The Fight Over DRM In HTML5 Should Represent The Last Stand For DRM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I know it's not a popular view here, but...
On the post: The Fight Over DRM In HTML5 Should Represent The Last Stand For DRM
Re: Re: Re: I know it's not a popular view here, but...
The difference between "streaming" and "downloading" in a technical sense is only 'how long the content stays in computer memory'.
Preventing everyone from being able to capture a stream of sound or video on a general purpose computer is not technologically possible. And even if it were, you still have the analog hole - there's no way to stop someone from recording it with another device. In order for music or video content to be useful to humans, it needs to be viewable/listenable to humans and that makes it susceptible to being copied, and thus any attempt to make it less viewable/listenable ends up making it less useful and as such is folly.
On the post: The Fight Over DRM In HTML5 Should Represent The Last Stand For DRM
Re: Re: Re: I know it's not a popular view here, but...
But it doesn't do that. It never has, and never will (at least without western democracies going all the way down the police state path).
What it does do is tie us up into compatibility issues. Instead of the tired old "This page best viewed in Internet Explorer 6" experience we suffered through, this turns it into "This page ONLY viewable on devices approved by the copyright owner."
It's not everyone's a winner - it's no-one is a winner.
On the post: The Fight Over DRM In HTML5 Should Represent The Last Stand For DRM
Re: Re: Re: A Bit Upset With Netflix Here
This is not strictly true. I think you're confusing keeping the source code or implementation secret, and keeping the encryption keys secret.
It is quite possible to have a fully open source DRM system, so long as asymetric keys (public/private key pairs) are used. The vector to then attack those types of DRM systems becomes determining the private key used to encrypt the data. The biggest DRM failures involving keys you've probably heard about (Blu-Ray, Sony PS3, DVD CSS) are instances where poor implementation (open or not) left the private keys easily recoverable.
(All that said, its still a horrendously bad idea supporting DRM within HTML5.)
On the post: Why The Networks Are Really Afraid Of Aereo: Time Warner Cable Says It Might Offer Aereo-Like Service
Re:
I've seen it that way for years. The difference between you and I is that I encourage people to question why they're doing something, especially if there is a better way to do it, whereas you seem to think that everyone should keep doing it without thinking critically.
Are re-transmission fees fundamentally a good thing for society? If you say yes, please provide your reasoning. My answer is no, whether it is the cable company or Aereo being told to pay it. The network is already broadcasting advertisements and getting paid that way, thus retransmission is increasing the reach of that advertising (and what they can charge advertisers), so additional fees are double-dipping (and charging twice for the same thing is inefficient). Adding additional transaction costs for copying infinitely copyable stuff is another inefficiency. Artificially limiting who can see or access your content, especially when it costs you nothing to allow it, and you are using your content to sell advertising, makes utterly no sense.
On the post: Universal Responds To Lawsuit About Its Hollywood Accounting Tricks By Claiming That It Actually Overpaid
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Simple - the studios won't make the deal if they can't get the language they want into the contract. There's probably plenty of investors out there that want "to make a movie" bad enough to be sloppy or gullible, not hire a competent lawyer, or have been convinced (possibly by their own lawyer) that its "standard boilerplate contract language" and nothing bad will happen. It's no different that new artists that don't know any better being convinced into signing completely one-sided record label contracts.
The investors smart or careful enough to see what a farce it is don't get into the deals, since they realize they easily would have a higher ROI by fronting cash to some math prodigy to beat the house in Vegas, betting on the Astros (are they still a MLB team?) to win the World Series, or simple burning their cash for warmth in the winter.
Maybe you should take a step outside your legal theories to understand how the real world works.
On the post: Universal Responds To Lawsuit About Its Hollywood Accounting Tricks By Claiming That It Actually Overpaid
Re:
Why bother with evidence. We have accusations. If you can assume that DMCA complaints automatically mean infringement, and grabbing an IP address out of a torrent tracker autmatically means the account holder of that IP is responsible for sharing a copyrighted work, then all we need to do is accuse Hollywood of corrupt accounting practices and we're right.
Right?
On the post: IP Attorney Responds To Patent Application Rejection By Filing Ranting, Ad Hom 'Remarks'
Re:
Let's remember, this guy was looking for a patent on a lawn sprinkler. A few pieces of plastic or metal to connect to a hose so you can spray a wide area with water - something that has been done for as long as there has been water running through pipes. A patent from 60 years ago is nearly identical to what he was trying to patent.
On the post: Attempt To Trigger Six Strikes Comes Up Empty
Re: Re: Re:
"If the bitpattern of a song and a random bitpattern cost effectively zero, then they are interchangeable."
My response would be that you are confusing price and value. The value of a random bitpattern is different from the bitpattern of a song. The value is also different to different people. That's pretty much the basis of economics.
If that's not what you're arguing, please correct me and be clear in what you are conveying.
On the post: Attempt To Trigger Six Strikes Comes Up Empty
Re:
In a word: No.
$1.29, $.99, or even $.79 is not compelling. The price is astronomically high. The only reason it's stuck so far is that for decades, people got used to paying $15-$20 (still greatly inflated, a.k.a. price fixing) for shiny plastic discs. But a copy of a bitpattern, transported over the internet, costs as close to zero as you can reasonably imagine, compared to a physical disc that had to be manufactured/pressed/packaged/shipped/distributed/retailed. The price of an mp3 is also astronomically high when you consider that to fill the capacity of a modern mp3 player or phone at those prices would cost around $16,000 (64GB, 4MB per song, $1 each).
So no, selling a non-scarce bitpattern at a price equivalent to physical items is not compelling. When the entire world could carry around in their pockets the sum total of human knowledge and culture, doing things like they were done in Pony Express days is insane.
On the post: Barnes & Noble's Filing Clearly Explains Why The Patent System Is Broken And How To Fix It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What if...
On the post: ICE Starts Raiding Mobile Phone Repair Shops To Stop Repairs With Aftermarket Parts
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If a pharma company or the FDA wants to sue someone trying to pass off counterfeit drugs (actual counterfeit - not gray market imports that are legit), I'm fine with it - but the SWAT tactics and seizures prior to an adversarial hearing are insane and I believe a violation of due process. If the NFL wants to go after someone for trademark violations making unofficial jerseys and show both damages and that people were deceived into thinking they were official, fine, but again locking people up over that is crazy, you don't need armed SWAT, and seizures prior to adversarial hearings should be against everything we stand for.
The wider issue we need to consider is why those operations exist in the first place. And it comes down to the monopoly holders not serving their customers, potential customers, or overall society by providing convenience, reasonable pricing, and quality service. All the gung-ho SWAT raids and seizures for anything that is not at risk of evidence destruction are only treating symptoms of the real problem and will not solve a damn thing.
And that's why all of the examples given are absurd.
On the post: ICE Starts Raiding Mobile Phone Repair Shops To Stop Repairs With Aftermarket Parts
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Those are equally absurd.
It's the same set of laws and it is a criminal infraction.
So you're claiming that bootleg DVDs (copyright violation), phone Viagra (trademark violation), counterfeit NFL jerseys (again, trademark violation), and aftermarket Apple parts (patent violation) are all violations of the same laws? I don't suppose you could specify which ones?
On the post: ICE Starts Raiding Mobile Phone Repair Shops To Stop Repairs With Aftermarket Parts
Re:
Funny, I've heard more stories about Apple products overheating straight out of the box from Apple than those which have been repaired using non-Apple parts.
Google suggest "macbook o" first result is macbook overheating.
Google suggest "iphone o" eighth result is overheating, and first result from "iphone ov".
If Homeland Security is in charge of protecting us from overheating phones, they're doing about as good a job as the TSA in ensuring that airplanes arrive on schedule.
On the post: ICE Starts Raiding Mobile Phone Repair Shops To Stop Repairs With Aftermarket Parts
Re: Re: Re:
That's absurd. Even if Apple thought the repair shop was violating their ridiculously overbroad patents, it is still a civil offense that should be handled by the courts - not with a SWAT team provided by ICE and the federal government.
Next >>