or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple's new MacBooks have built-in copy protection measures
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's new MacBooks have built-in copy protection measures - Page 2

post #41 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by webhead View Post

This is the exact reason why I don't buy movies online form iTunes or anywhere else.

This means your are not a consumer and not part of their target market.

Quote:
Originally Posted by webhead View Post

I can't stand all the DRM and restrictions all of the content providers are trying to implement. If blueray brings more of this type of crap you can keep it! I'm fine with DVD quality on my digital projector. I can rip the DVDs with handbrake or mactheripper in order to have a legal backup for personal use (legal in Canada), record HD TV and paypervu movies on my bell express vu PVR, which I can then record to DVD on my home DVD recorder.

Sounds like a lot of hoops to jump through just to get DVD quality video for FREE.

Quote:
Originally Posted by webhead View Post


I am a huge Apple fan but TV and movies on-line from iTunes just doesnt work for me yet, too restrictive, too many hoops.

I'm a fan too and if HDCP means I can BUY HD movies on my Mac then I am OK with it.
I'm sure Steve would love to give us DRM free HD movies, but there is no way the studios will go for it.
post #42 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by wobegon View Post

Ah, well we can all thank the paranoid movie studios for this.

@ JakeTheRock,

The reason Jobs has called for the removal of DRM on music files is because the music labels already put out their artists' music in DRM-free form on CDs. It was totally hypocritical when they claimed (and still do) that legal, DRM-free digital downloads would lead to piracy when they were selling (and still are) millions of unprotected CDs.

On the other hand, movies have never really been available in DRM-free form, so Jobs, nor anyone else, can make nearly as good an argument for removing DRM from that medium. At the end of the day, the movie studios hold the copyrights, so they can do what they want in terms of copy protection.

With that said, I don't really get the point of HDCP, which requires an HDCP-enabled display. Why do they want to protect the output device? Anyone have any insight on this?

Well said. Apple isn't doing this, and neither is Microsoft. HOLLYWOOD is doing this, and they have been doing this for YEARS. Even VHS movies were copy protected. So in order for Apple to offer HD content, it must be HDCP protected. The article fails to mention if the movie was the HD version or the SD version. Most likely, it was the HD version, and the HDCP protection is probably in the file itself, not the MacBook. Even if the MacBook offered HDMI instead of DisplayPort, it would still have the HDCP protection.

Now that iTunes is offering HD content, HOLLYWOOD requires HDCP protection, just like they do with HDTV broadcasts. They want the HDCP protection to eliminate piracy and copying of the digital content through the output. For example, if your HD cable box is not connected to an HDCP compliant device (Display), the signal is downgraded to 480p resolution, or not displayed at all.
post #43 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by tibbsy View Post

The point is that they illustrate the same point - consider the three following scenarios:

...

2) You buy the Wall-E DVD. You paid for it, it's yours. You can (try to) eat it, you can watch it as many times as you want, on any DVD player, you can throw it in the garbage the second you get it, and you can give it to someone else. It is for all intents and purposes yours to do as you wish.

...

This is not true, and it is the crux of your argument. You don't own the movie. You own the right to play it for yourself. That is all. You cannot show it to a paying audiance. You cannot copy it for others.
The physical disk is yours--I suppose you can eat that if you like, but the information encoded in it is NOT yours. Sorry.
Progress is a comfortable disease
--e.e.c.
Reply
Progress is a comfortable disease
--e.e.c.
Reply
post #44 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by tibbsy View Post

The point is that they illustrate the same point - consider the three following scenarios:

1) You buy an apple. The second you pay for it, you have the right to do anything you want with it. You can eat it, you can throw in the garbage, hell you can put it right back on the shelf. It is for all intents and purposes yours to do as you wish.

Uh, no you can't.

Try taking the install DVDs that you PAID for, making copies and selling them on eBay.

Try bludgeoning someone to death with a MacBook and then tell the police "But I paid for the MacBook. I can do anything I want with it. ANYTHING." (Scary laugh)

You can do whatever you want as long as it doesn't infringe on someone else's rights.
That includes intellectual property rights and the right to not be bludgeoned to death.
post #45 of 247
It is one thing to have HDCP on the new Macbooks. It is another thing to have it enabled for iTunes movies (as that teacher trying to watch Hellboy found out). I thought it would be a while before the movie studio was going to turn it on. Looks like Apple is leading the way to enabling HDCP with iTunes. You would think they would warn the customers before they turned on HDCP?
post #46 of 247
In the same way that we all pay a theft-tax on clothes, because of the people that leave stores without paying, those of us that pay for legal content pay a piracy-tax, because of people that download/copy content illegally.

So, if we want to minimize that piracy tax, we need DRM - both on files and on cables. The problem is that the definition of fair use needs to be updated to match a world of digial content and the internet, such that piracy is thwarted, but users can get their fair use.

Until there is a major programme to review the electronic landscape, classify devices ( distributors, downloaders, players, etc ) and redefine fair use so that is implementable with common technology, pirates will rip-off the content-owners, who will pass the cost onto us non-criminals.

Not only do we pay more for our content, but I know that the cost of each iPod in Europe includes a piracy-tax applied to the price. Also there is a human cost: we saw the content companies convince the police to go into people's homes and arrest housewives and teenagers during the Napster years, now the border guards are searching through our laptops and iPods.

Until then, DRM doesn't work, and DRM-free doesn't work.

( Steve Jobs for CTO ? )

Many of the most important software concepts were invented in the 70s and forgotten in the 80s.

Reply

Many of the most important software concepts were invented in the 70s and forgotten in the 80s.

Reply
post #47 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by pt123 View Post

[...]
You would think they would warn the customers before they turned on HDCP?

September, 9th 2008 ...

http://www.apple.com/legal/itunes/us/service.html

Many of the most important software concepts were invented in the 70s and forgotten in the 80s.

Reply

Many of the most important software concepts were invented in the 70s and forgotten in the 80s.

Reply
post #48 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by tibbsy View Post

2) You buy the Wall-E DVD. You paid for it, it's yours. You can (try to) eat it, you can watch it as many times as you want, on any DVD player, you can throw it in the garbage the second you get it, and you can give it to someone else. It is for all intents and purposes yours to do as you wish.

No, that's wrong. you can't do whatever you want with it. If it is a region 1 DVD you can only watch it in a region 1 DVD player. As well you can not copy it to VHS as macrovision prevents this. In fact you are not supposed to be able to copy them at all.

There are rules for DVDs even. Some people may get around them, but there are rules.
post #49 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feste View Post

Yeah, this is pretty much completely wrong. The problem is with your number (2): You own the DVD, but you don't own Wall-E, and you CANNOT do whatever you want with the DVD's content (including, by the way, fast forwarding past the portion of the DVD that lists all the things you're not allowed to do with it--or hadn't you noticed?). You can give the DVD to someone else, but not the files on it. You can't show the DVD to a room full of people and charge money for it. (People do that all the time, but hey, that doesn't make it legal...)

To a certain extent, what's going on generally is that we're moving toward the equivalent of a society in which automobiles have chips that prevent them from moving faster than the legal speed limit. The mere fact that every driver on the road speeds, and 99.9% of them do so with impunity, does not mean that they have the right to do so, and if cars suddenly began to prevent them from speeding, there wouldn't really be any available non-childish, non-selfish argument against that technology...

@Bageljoey, Leonard and others who have respectfully argued against:
All of your counterexamples are not true. You CAN do all of the things you've mentioned (except Leonard's region example): you just can't do them legally. You are not supposed to.

That's, again, my point here: I never said it was legal, or right/wrong. Exactly as you mention in your own example, my issue is that those decisions are being taken away from the consumer: in scenario 3 your choice has been made for you. In scenario 1 and 2, you still have that choice. Your ability to choose how to use things, whether legal or not, is being eroded. You're not supposed to speed while driving, you're not supposed to be reading and replying on a AI forum during work hours, but we're not agreeing that the choice to do these things should be left to us?
post #50 of 247
Well, this a another phenomenal reason to avoid ITMS and just use netflix. If netflix gets their act together and start streaming even more material, they are going to bury iTunes. I can't really say Im gonna miss it either...
post #51 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

For example, the terms stipulate that high-definition digital video sources must not transmit protected content to non-HDCP-compliant receivers, as described above, and DVD-Audio content must be restricted to CD-audio quality or less when played back over non-HDCP-digital audio outputs.

I don't get this audio part. Does that mean protected audio content or just any DVD audio content? I author DVDs for my clients all the time with our original video and audio and without DRM obviously. What happens in this case?

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #52 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by hillstones View Post

Well said. Apple isn't doing this, and neither is Microsoft. HOLLYWOOD is doing this, and they have been doing this for YEARS. Even VHS movies were copy protected. So in order for Apple to offer HD content, it must be HDCP protected. The article fails to mention if the movie was the HD version or the SD version. Most likely, it was the HD version, and the HDCP protection is probably in the file itself, not the MacBook. Even if the MacBook offered HDMI instead of DisplayPort, it would still have the HDCP protection.

Now that iTunes is offering HD content, HOLLYWOOD requires HDCP protection, just like they do with HDTV broadcasts. They want the HDCP protection to eliminate piracy and copying of the digital content through the output. For example, if your HD cable box is not connected to an HDCP compliant device (Display), the signal is downgraded to 480p resolution, or not displayed at all.

Unfortunately the teacher trying to watch Hellboy didn't seem to have the option of watching the movie constrained to 480p resolution. The dialog just said the movie couldn't be played. That part doesn't seem right. I haven't purchased any movies from iTunes but it seems like if HDCP is enabled, there should be some warnings / explanation?
post #53 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by tibbsy View Post

The point is that they illustrate the same point - consider the three following scenarios:

1) You buy an apple. The second you pay for it, you have the right to do anything you want with it. You can eat it, you can throw in the garbage, hell you can put it right back on the shelf. It is for all intents and purposes yours to do as you wish.

2) You buy the Wall-E DVD. You paid for it, it's yours. You can (try to) eat it, you can watch it as many times as you want, on any DVD player, you can throw it in the garbage the second you get it, and you can give it to someone else. It is for all intents and purposes yours to do as you wish.

3) You buy Wall-E off a digital movie vendor. Now, if you paid for it, it's yours right? You can do whatever you want with it right? If you wanted, you could take the file and delete it. So why is it that someone else is getting to decide if and how you can watch it? Who knows - maybe in clicking through those terms of service, people agreed that they didn't actually own those digitial items they paid money for and figured they'd own like a real DVD.

Well, if you buy a Wall-E DVD there are still plenty of things you CAN'T do with it, like project it on a big screen and charge people to watch it, rent it out for money, copy it, etc.

And your argument that if you buy a digital copy of a movie you should be able to do with it what you like breaks down also with a very simple counterexample: supposing you RENT a movie from a digital store? What you do is exactly the same, you download file, and have a copy of some digital bits on your hard drive. Sure, you can delete that file if you want, but if the DRM enforces conditions such as you can only decrypt and play the movie once, you can only play it for 7 days from time of purchase, etc. then presumably you wouldn't complain too much because you knew what you were getting. In both cases the situation is the same. You're not "buying the movie" but buying the right to do something specific (play a movie in a particular way on a particular machine, play a movie in a particular way on a particular machine for a particular amount of time).

The problem is that collectively we're transferring the concept of "buying" or "renting" a physical DVD and extrapolating that to a digital copy but the situation is very different. It's much more akin to purchasing a license for software.

I could write some software and grant you a license to use it subject to any conditions I care to impose. Perhaps there's an annual or monthly license fee. Perhaps you're limited to how many users can use it or how many transactions per second you can perform or how big an image file you can process. That surely is up to me (though clearly, you don't have to purchase the software under those license terms if you don't want to).

What people selling digital content (whether software or movies or anything else) SHOULD be required to do, however, is make it VERY clear what you are or are not purchasing. Don't make people think they're "buying a movie" the same way they buy a DVD and can do with it what they want (such as playing it through a VGA projector) if you're not actually going to let them do that as that's false advertising. The iTunes Store, and other digital stores too of course, should be forced to have a big warning sticker saying RESTRICTED RIGHTS on the purchase page (which links to a summary page that says exactly what you are and are not allowed to do with that copy).
post #54 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by PXT View Post

September, 9th 2008 ...

http://www.apple.com/legal/itunes/us/service.html

Wow that is one long disclaimer, I never thought buying a movie could be so complicated. Welcome to the 21st century :-(
post #55 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

PS: I wonder how many AI posters are against this HDCP, but also keep asking for Blu-ray.

I was going to say also this is the same deal for Blu-ray, what are you all so surprised about.
post #56 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by PXT View Post

In the same way that we all pay a theft-tax on clothes, because of the people that leave stores without paying, those of us that pay for legal content pay a piracy-tax, because of people that download/copy content illegally.

So, if we want to minimize that piracy tax, we need DRM - both on files and on cables. The problem is that the definition of fair use needs to be updated to match a world of digial content and the internet, such that piracy is thwarted, but users can get their fair use.

Until there is a major programme to review the electronic landscape, classify devices ( distributors, downloaders, players, etc ) and redefine fair use so that is implementable with common technology, pirates will rip-off the content-owners, who will pass the cost onto us non-criminals.

Not only do we pay more for our content, but I know that the cost of each iPod in Europe includes a piracy-tax applied to the price. Also there is a human cost: we saw the content companies convince the police to go into people's homes and arrest housewives and teenagers during the Napster years, now the border guards are searching through our laptops and iPods.

Until then, DRM doesn't work, and DRM-free doesn't work.

( Steve Jobs for CTO ? )

Yep, we need a way that the person who created the content gets paid reasonably for it, that the middle men don't get an unfair share, and that the consumer can do anything within reason to use it.

Trouble is the middle men usually want more than their fair share and want to control how you can use it.
post #57 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagromme View Post

Having copy protection support in the machines' DisplayPort hardware doesn't bother me so much--it's part of the DisplayPort standard. But what does bother me is that Apple is USING that copy protection in the movies they supply via iTunes! Obviously that decision is likely from the content owners, not from Apple themselves, but I'd sure be unhappy if I couldn't watch a movie on my big external screen!



Apple stands up against DRM all the time. They don't always win. What computer company are you thinking of switching to that does a better job than Apple at getting content owners to abandon DRM?

It's bad news, but it's a stretch to think that it's Apple who drives the use of DRM. Apple OPPOSES DRM, publicly, and in some cases they get their way. Look at music--the Store couldn't have ever existed without DRM, but once it took off, Apple has gotten EMI to abandon it. Others may follow suit, or they may choose to keep punishing Apple's success, but either way, the DRM on those other songs is not Apple's choice. And looking at movies, it seems that SOME movies have this HDCP protection and some don't, so I think once again you can bet it's the content owner, not Apple, who is behind it.


the cynic in me thinks that iTunes Plus was just a ruse for APple to charge more for already well overpriced content.
post #58 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by PXT View Post

September, 9th 2008 ...

http://www.apple.com/legal/itunes/us/service.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by Archipellago View Post

the cynic in me thinks that iTunes Plus was just a ruse for APple to charge more for already well overpriced content.

Well, if you want to get more cynical, Steve Jobs is the largest individual shareholder of Disney.
post #59 of 247
Back when I was a little kid the only place you could see a movie was in a theatre. This attached a firm price to the experience of watching a movie. Then came videos and the value of seeing a movie dropped because a single price allowed you and all your friends to watch it over and over again. The picture and sound sucked so there was still some value in seeing some movies in a theatre. DVDs further reduced the value of that movie because the home experience more closely rivaled the theatre and the picture didn't degrade over time like that on a tape.

Today the experience of watching a movie is worth no more than $2: less than it was when I was going to movies as a child 35 years ago. The movie studios, by releasing films from the theatres, destroyed their value. Asking people to invest hundreds of dollars in hardware for the dubious privilege of paying $15-20 for a digital copy of a movie that probably isn't worth watching more than once is seriously delusional.

Telling the few people who are willing to spend that money that they must now spend hundreds more on "compliant" hardware is both insulting and a little bit crazy.

It's no wonder the number of people obtaining content from free sources is continually rising.
post #60 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by pt123 View Post

Unfortunately the teacher trying to watch Hellboy didn't seem to have the option of watching the movie constrained to 480p resolution. The dialog just said the movie couldn't be played. That part doesn't seem right. I haven't purchased any movies from iTunes but it seems like if HDCP is enabled, there should be some warnings / explanation?

That's the part of the story that confuses me and makes me suspect there's a bug in play.
I thought HDCP should restrict content to 480p for non-HDCP devices. Can't remember where I read that though.

Many of the most important software concepts were invented in the 70s and forgotten in the 80s.

Reply

Many of the most important software concepts were invented in the 70s and forgotten in the 80s.

Reply
post #61 of 247
Any purchase of mine is now put on hold. This needs further analysis. WTF?
post #62 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhowarth View Post

Well, if you buy a Wall-E DVD there are still plenty of things you CAN'T do with it, like project it on a big screen and charge people to watch it, rent it out for money, copy it, etc.

I'd edited my reply further above to incorporate my response to that: you can do these things, but not legally. Those choice to abide or break those laws is still yours to make.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rhowarth View Post

And your argument that if you buy a digital copy of a movie you should be able to do with it what you like breaks down also with a very simple counterexample: supposing you RENT a movie from a digital store? What you do is exactly the same, you download file, and have a copy of some digital bits on your hard drive. Sure, you can delete that file if you want, but if the DRM enforces conditions such as you can only decrypt and play the movie once, you can only play it for 7 days from time of purchase, etc. then presumably you wouldn't complain too much because you knew what you were getting. In both cases the situation is the same. You're not "buying the movie" but buying the right to do something specific (play a movie in a particular way on a particular machine, play a movie in a particular way on a particular machine for a particular amount of time).

The problem is that collectively we're transferring the concept of "buying" or "renting" a physical DVD and extrapolating that to a digital copy but the situation is very different. It's much more akin to purchasing a license for software.

I could write some software and grant you a license to use it subject to any conditions I care to impose. Perhaps there's an annual or monthly license fee. Perhaps you're limited to how many users can use it or how many transactions per second you can perform or how big an image file you can process. That surely is up to me (though clearly, you don't have to purchase the software under those license terms if you don't want to).

What people selling digital content (whether software or movies or anything else) SHOULD be required to do, however, is make it VERY clear what you are or are not purchasing. Don't make people think they're "buying a movie" the same way they buy a DVD and can do with it what they want (such as playing it through a VGA projector) if you're not actually going to let them do that as that's false advertising. The iTunes Store, and other digital stores too of course, should be forced to have a big warning sticker saying RESTRICTED RIGHTS on the purchase page (which links to a summary page that says exactly what you are and are not allowed to do with that copy).

There are a number of great points in here rhowarth, and my argument is that not that DRM is wrong - ideally, I want a reasonable solution that respects the rights of the copyright holder, but at the same time does not limit legitimate consumers from consuming media in the way they see fit. I just feel that the current solution is too simply too restrictive.

In your renting example, the intent is clear. You download a movie, and (like a physical copy), you only have it for a limited period of time, after which it presumably expires. But I've known some DRM that restricts the number of times you can play it, some even at one. I don't remember any DVDs I've rented and wasn't able to skip back a chapter! I've also rented movies where I didn't get time to watch it during the rental period, and returned it late (paid a late fee). A digitally rented does not support this ability, and while I should have watched it and returned it on time, I had the choice not to. Such a choice has been removed during the transition to digital media, and that's where my issues lie.
post #63 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by pt123 View Post

Well, if you want to get more cynical, Steve Jobs is the largest individual shareholder of Disney.

ANd DIsney was/is one of the major proponents of MAcroVision, etal.
post #64 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal View Post

This is the sign of the times boys. Get over it. Yes, a huge amount of people are going to be inconvenienced by this since a majority of users do not have HDCP-compliant equipment. This is certainly nothing new and if anything, Apple is one of the last folks to be forced (??) to get on the bandwagon if the studios are to allow their media to be distributed via iTunes.

You can gripe and moan all you want. Anything digital is going to have this kind of lock-down. HD TV's have them, HDMI equipment, DVI, etc.

If this means you will never buy Apple again, then by all means... go to an alternative vendor then. Oh wait... they do it too and they have been doing it far longer than Apple has. Quite possible, Apple arguably may have implemented it in a way that is not a major headache compared to the other solutions offered by other systems.

Everyone is beating a dead horse here folks. I don't like it any more than anyone else. Fortunately, most of my equipment is already HDCP-compliant and has been that way for a couple years now.

But I feel your pain. I raise my glass for a goodbye-toast to an era now past.

Everyone knows these measures simply encourage people to using torrents to find material they want. Another short-sighted move.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #65 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

I was going to say also this is the same deal for Blu-ray, what are you all so surprised about.

That it's coming from the hardware not the disc itself.
post #66 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by sausage&Onion View Post

Well, this a another phenomenal reason to avoid ITMS and just use netflix. If netflix gets their act together and start streaming even more material, they are going to bury iTunes. I can't really say Im gonna miss it either...

"...from November 19th, users of the updated Xbox Experience will be able to access both standard and high-definition streams in the same way as owners of Rokus Netflix box can. However depending on your Xbox 360 setup, you may find yourself frustrated; Netflix are insisting on HDCP protection for the digital connection..."

http://www.slashgear.com/netflix-on-...ction-3020852/

Many of the most important software concepts were invented in the 70s and forgotten in the 80s.

Reply

Many of the most important software concepts were invented in the 70s and forgotten in the 80s.

Reply
post #67 of 247
And this time Apple is one of the promoters.

Bad move Apple unless you want to be the next M$ !
post #68 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by PXT View Post

In the same way that we all pay a theft-tax on clothes, because of the people that leave stores without paying, those of us that pay for legal content pay a piracy-tax, because of people that download/copy content illegally.

So, if we want to minimize that piracy tax, we need DRM - both on files and on cables. The problem is that the definition of fair use needs to be updated to match a world of digial content and the internet, such that piracy is thwarted, but users can get their fair use.

Until there is a major programme to review the electronic landscape, classify devices ( distributors, downloaders, players, etc ) and redefine fair use so that is implementable with common technology, pirates will rip-off the content-owners, who will pass the cost onto us non-criminals.

Not only do we pay more for our content, but I know that the cost of each iPod in Europe includes a piracy-tax applied to the price. Also there is a human cost: we saw the content companies convince the police to go into people's homes and arrest housewives and teenagers during the Napster years, now the border guards are searching through our laptops and iPods.

Until then, DRM doesn't work, and DRM-free doesn't work.

( Steve Jobs for CTO ? )


Right argument, wrongly applied...

I don't care either way, I have never bought from ITMS and never will. Whilst it is still much cheaper to actually pick up a CD, even with pressing, printing, materials and transport I will continue to do so.


if the general populous want to start a serious uprising then you all need to stop buying the affected content and ALL of you need to torrent download whatever you like.

The weight of a protest like that would soon make all of the industry change their minds and force them to meaningful debate. It is easy to go after small groups of uploaders but a mass move to illegal downloading could never ever be combated.

Once the debate is done though and drm free is the norm then torrenting movies must never return..

power to the people.


Apple suck at this sort of thing worse than MS...
post #69 of 247
These DRM restrictions and hardware issues with external monitors are just disgraceful and infuriating. I have a brand new MacBook and I have experienced both the restriction on playing downloaded material and general display problems on my external monitor.

I won't be buying anything from iTunes from now on. I hope Apple fixes the monitor issue quickly (along with the Bluetooth issues I and other new MacBook owners have been having). This is just so disappointing that Apple would sell a product in this state.
post #70 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

That it's coming from the hardware not the disc itself.

Not likely. The DRM is implanted in the media file. Its possible to play other iTunes video files over VGA. Just not some of the HD movies.
post #71 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Mozzarella View Post

This means your are not a consumer and not part of their target market.


Sounds like a lot of hoops to jump through just to get DVD quality video for FREE.


I'm a fan too and if HDCP means I can BUY HD movies on my Mac then I am OK with it.
I'm sure Steve would love to give us DRM free HD movies, but there is no way the studios will go for it.

no its quite fun actually, getting the exact settings, quality you want. Crikey I sound like a linux geek.

and...

if you really believe that Jobs wants to give us DRM free movies then you are living in Dreamland!!

he's the biggest individual shareholder in Disney........

with Jobs you have to remember he isn't 2 faced...he has more than that. I bet you believe that what he says on stage is true and what he actually means...!

who reaches around who by the way...?
post #72 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by tibbsy View Post

@Bageljoey, Leonard and others who have respectfully argued against:
All of your counterexamples are not true. You CAN do all of the things you've mentioned (except Leonard's region example): you just can't do them legally. You are not supposed to.

That's, again, my point here: I never said it was legal, or right/wrong. Exactly as you mention in your own example, my issue is that those decisions are being taken away from the consumer: in scenario 3 your choice has been made for you. In scenario 1 and 2, you still have that choice. Your ability to choose how to use things, whether legal or not, is being eroded. You're not supposed to speed while driving, you're not supposed to be reading and replying on a AI forum during work hours, but we're not agreeing that the choice to do these things should be left to us?

OK, but I think you are changing your argument here. Let me quote from your original post:
Quote:
DRM woefully restricts rights you should have to something that you pay money for and thus (theoretically) own.

and
Quote:
I just think that when I buy the songs in a digital-only format, I should be able to treat them like songs I own on CDs.

These quotes indicate that you feel ownership of the copyrighted material that you have only bought the restricted rights to.
Your new argument is that legality is not an issue and that nobody has any right to restrict your ability to choose to break the law. You can make that argument, but you start to look silly doing it...
Progress is a comfortable disease
--e.e.c.
Reply
Progress is a comfortable disease
--e.e.c.
Reply
post #73 of 247
So this means that the only time I'd run into this is if I try to watch something through a VGA port converter, right? Since if you were on a machine that has a DVI or HDMI or DisplayPort connection and you are connecting it to a DVI monitor (like, but not exclusive to, the last gen Apple Monitors) or a Flatscreen TV (with either DVI or HDMI) or the new Apple monitors (with DisplayPort), then you'll be fine? What's the problem? It's not like the movies didn't have DRM to begin with. They had regulated where and how you moved the files as well as how many copies you could make.

The way people all over the web were ranting was making it sound like you needed a new apple monitor when really all you need is a DisplayPort to HDMI or DVI connector since they all are HDCP compatible. If DVI doesn't work for you, then it's time to by a new monitor.

Here's some help....

Welcome to the pervious generation...
It's only after you've lost everything that you're free to do anything.

Tyler Durden | Fight Club
Reply
It's only after you've lost everything that you're free to do anything.

Tyler Durden | Fight Club
Reply
post #74 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by pt123 View Post

Well, if you want to get more cynical, Steve Jobs is the largest individual shareholder of Disney.

dang beat me to it...

with Jobs I am more cynical than anyone!!

iCon...
post #75 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by zcam View Post

. I won't be buying anything from iTunes from now on. I hope Apple fixes the monitor issue quickly (along with the Bluetooth issues I and other new MacBook owners have been having). This is just so disappointing that Apple would sell a product in this state.

Unfortunately experiencing bugs goes along with the risk of buying brand new build of hardware. Their have been many on this list who've said they will wait until the second build of the MacBook's to buy one. Because by that point Apple should have shaken out the bugs.
post #76 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by tibbsy View Post

@Bageljoey, Leonard and others who have respectfully argued against:
All of your counterexamples are not true. You CAN do all of the things you've mentioned (except Leonard's region example): you just can't do them legally. You are not supposed to.

That's, again, my point here: I never said it was legal, or right/wrong. Exactly as you mention in your own example, my issue is that those decisions are being taken away from the consumer: in scenario 3 your choice has been made for you. In scenario 1 and 2, you still have that choice. Your ability to choose how to use things, whether legal or not, is being eroded. You're not supposed to speed while driving, you're not supposed to be reading and replying on a AI forum during work hours, but we're not agreeing that the choice to do these things should be left to us?

I don't see the benefit of allowing people to choose whether to act legally or not, if there's an effective way to simply compel legal behavior. Laws are not passed in order to make people better, or give them fodder for exercising their free will in a self-actualizing manner, or whatever you have in mind. The purpose of laws is to remove choice, not create it. Again, our perception of legal and illegal behavior as two possible courses of action that present us with choices does not accord with the rationale or motives behind legislation. It's a side effect.

Besides which, if you're just talking about people having choices, you've talked yourself into a corner, because the technology you're upset about was also created by people exercising their choices. If it's all about choice, then the entities with the resources and power (read: corporations) will exercise their choices at the expense of the entities with fewer resources and less power (read: individual consumers).
post #77 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by InsideApple View Post

And this time Apple is one of the promoters.

Bad move Apple unless you want to be the next M$ !



Apple were/are way ahead of MS on this one....
post #78 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archipellago View Post

if the general populous want to start a serious uprising then you all need to stop buying the affected content and ALL of you need to torrent download whatever you like.

I can agree. Not buying DRM content is the best protest you can make against it. But unfortunately most people don't care so it may not make much difference.


Quote:
Apple suck at this sort of thing worse than MS...

Windows adopted HDCP right away. MS has developed about 5 different DRM schemes within Windows itself. Apple only has 1.

I'm sure this is a concession Apple had to make to get HD content onto iTunes.
post #79 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by jawadde View Post

That or DVD-jon will break DHCP.

But we'll run out of IP addresses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jawadde View Post

i'm not worried at all about this technology : they'll never learn

Very true.

All they are doing is hurting legitimate sales more. It's like teaching a kid by putting up a mild barrier to doing something. This presents nothing more than a challenge/rebellion of unwanted authority.

Chances are that removing the challenge wouldn't really change anything. People tend not to steal digital content because they like to steal. People steal digital content for convenience and freedom. DRM removes convenience and freedom and you have to pay for the privilege.

I always found that funny about the copyright notices. They make legitimate buyers sit through that crap on every single movie, every time you put the movie in the player. Even VLC skips past it but people who steal the film get the best experience. No feeling of regret when they discover the utter waste of money it was paying for the drivel Hollywood churns out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leonard

Didn't we want HDCP compliant displays and the software and hardware to handle this, so that we could watch Blu-Ray movies???

I think the expectation was that it would enable playback of HDCP movies without restrictions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PXT

What MAY change, is that we could see a major increase of content in iTunes.

And nobody buying it. I think HDCP will be a major drawback for HD content. Think what people have to go through to support it. New players/computers, new displays, more expensive discs all for what? A slightly sharper image. Are people really unhappy with DVD quality? My view is it's about the content and not the quality. I can quite happily watch video in ipod 320 x 240 format.

This move to HDCP will not change my future Mac purchases, it will just mean I don't buy from itunes, which I don't do now - I rent DVDs - and I won't feel the urgency to buy Blu-Ray discs, new displays etc. In 5 years when movies start being HD-only, then I'll see what options they have then and pick what is most convenient for me.
post #80 of 247
If you think this is a ridiculously bad business choice on Apple's part then you need to let them know. Apple has always been fairly responsible when it comes to DRM, but this is completely unacceptable. They are putting their customers second to big content, and the only way they'll stop is if we let them know how bad a decision it was for them.

Everyone, go to this feedback page and let them know what you think about their new HDCP support:
http://www.apple.com/feedback/macbook.html
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple's new MacBooks have built-in copy protection measures