![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Well, here's a neat little roundup of the Entertainment Industry's latest idiotic--and, dear gods, do I mean that word in every possible sense--efforts to slap DRM and other forms of ridiculous copy-protection bullshit on everything they put out.
Most recently, the dummies have started taking a new tack: Fair use stifles innovation. Are you fucking kidding me? That's like saying Moore's Law stifles the development of better processors! I won't event dignify such a boneheaded statement as "Fair use stifles innovation" with the usual cutting Pegritzian analysis--if you really want to know more, read the link, as it says it all and, quite frankly, I'm not going to waste words on ripping apart something that by its nature--like the term "governmental oversight"--is a self-defeating oxymoron.
In further idiotic news, the RIAA is suing a 14-year-old girl because--oooooooooh--she downloaded something blacklisted by the content-providers! BUT! Plenty of people are fighting back. Just take a quick glance at the Electronic Frontier Foundation's website for the details. Makes for some surprising reading.
Microsoft has developed a DeeVamaDee that can play only once. That's right, folks: drop $19 on a DeeVamaDee of Ghostbusters, play it, and then--guess what?--it is no longer functional. Now, this idea isn't as completely stupid as it sounds: if you use it for little disposable "sampler disks" that, say, just give viewers a few previews or throw-away content that no one will really want to keep, okay--I still think it's dumb, but I can see a use for it. But if ANYONE thinks I--and probably most of the other people on this continent--are going to shell out good money for a piece of media that self-destructs like some kind of Mission Impossible briefing disk after ONE viewing, you should be imprisoned for criminal idiocy.
UPDATE: This is, surprisingly enough, a hoax! Still...it really wouldn't surprise me if someone tried to market the technology again, even though it's already been amply proven that the business model is pure shite.
Ohyeah, and while we're at it...Several major-lable artists like Switchfoot and The Dave Matthews Band have actually posted information on the web (which was promptly taken down by their labels, of course, but not before it made it onto the Web and can be found damnear everywhere) concerning how to circumvent the slackjawed DRM and copy-protection schemes the stupid corps put on their CDs. You know something's not right in the state of Denmark when bands themselves have to post info on how to put their own music onto your own iPod.
And finally...James Patrick Kelly, one of my favorite sci-fi writers, has written an excellent "On the Net" editorial for Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Mag concerning all sorts of digital freedom issues. Check it out.
I'm going to go and RIP SOME CDs NOW.
Most recently, the dummies have started taking a new tack: Fair use stifles innovation. Are you fucking kidding me? That's like saying Moore's Law stifles the development of better processors! I won't event dignify such a boneheaded statement as "Fair use stifles innovation" with the usual cutting Pegritzian analysis--if you really want to know more, read the link, as it says it all and, quite frankly, I'm not going to waste words on ripping apart something that by its nature--like the term "governmental oversight"--is a self-defeating oxymoron.
In further idiotic news, the RIAA is suing a 14-year-old girl because--oooooooooh--she downloaded something blacklisted by the content-providers! BUT! Plenty of people are fighting back. Just take a quick glance at the Electronic Frontier Foundation's website for the details. Makes for some surprising reading.
Microsoft has developed a DeeVamaDee that can play only once. That's right, folks: drop $19 on a DeeVamaDee of Ghostbusters, play it, and then--guess what?--it is no longer functional. Now, this idea isn't as completely stupid as it sounds: if you use it for little disposable "sampler disks" that, say, just give viewers a few previews or throw-away content that no one will really want to keep, okay--I still think it's dumb, but I can see a use for it. But if ANYONE thinks I--and probably most of the other people on this continent--are going to shell out good money for a piece of media that self-destructs like some kind of Mission Impossible briefing disk after ONE viewing, you should be imprisoned for criminal idiocy.
UPDATE: This is, surprisingly enough, a hoax! Still...it really wouldn't surprise me if someone tried to market the technology again, even though it's already been amply proven that the business model is pure shite.
Ohyeah, and while we're at it...Several major-lable artists like Switchfoot and The Dave Matthews Band have actually posted information on the web (which was promptly taken down by their labels, of course, but not before it made it onto the Web and can be found damnear everywhere) concerning how to circumvent the slackjawed DRM and copy-protection schemes the stupid corps put on their CDs. You know something's not right in the state of Denmark when bands themselves have to post info on how to put their own music onto your own iPod.
And finally...James Patrick Kelly, one of my favorite sci-fi writers, has written an excellent "On the Net" editorial for Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Mag concerning all sorts of digital freedom issues. Check it out.
I'm going to go and RIP SOME CDs NOW.
