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.
The purpose of HDCP is to stop an analog hole. If you could plug display port or DVI into an VGA cable. Recording devices could record a pristine and DRM free copy of the content.
I don't understand why the restriction should apply to VGA displays. I understand HDMI and DVI requiring HDCP compliance.
So you can't take that VGA feed and copy it. The CP in HDCP is for Copy Protection. iTunes should down-convert to 480p in this case; that's the only mistake on Apple's part.
I had to learn this lesson the hard way. I remember trying to sell a legit copy I owned of AutoCAD on ebay. After my auction was booted and my account frozen I learned that just because I had purchased the software and license, it didn't mean I could do whatever I wanted to (which included reselling it). I was "leasing" the intellectual property under certain terms and conditions. There was no gun held to my head when I bought it. Did I like it? No. In fact, there was something very un-American about the whole thing. But that's the way it is!
If you "just won't stand for this" and expect Apple to change... you might as well get good at creating hand puppets with that non-HDCP projector!
It's one of those times when you ask yourself "what's getting upset going to do?"
Aren't you one of the ones so keen on Blu-ray? This same DRM would come with it.
I've never said anything terribly pro or con on Blu-Ray, except that I thought it was better than HD-DVD, and that while it will be replaced by digital downloads, that process will take a long time due to bandwidth limitations.
I've never said anything terribly pro or con on Blu-Ray, except that I thought it was better than HD-DVD, and that while it will be replaced by digital downloads, that process will take a long time due to bandwidth limitations.
You have me confused with someone else.
...
Alright, I'm trying to keep all of your outrages straight.
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.
If you really cared to make a difference, you'd not buy the content and not pirate it from a torrent. If the studios saw declining sales and declining torrent downloads, they couldn't use piracy as a lame rationalization for DRM that they do now.
Besides, you don't have a right to use their products. They can put whatever DRM on it that they like. It doesn't mean you have a right to steal it just because you really want it.
Simply stealing it sends them a message that you're a thief. Letting them know their product isn't important enough to you to use at all and that if they removed DRM they'd have your money will send a much more powerful message.
OK, but I think you are changing your argument here. Let me quote from your original post:
and
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...
Conceded, and my meaning was not so much over the matter of ownership in that sense. I do own many msuic CDs and I know that I only own the right to consume that music. But my beef is simple that if a DRM is going to restrict illegal uses of media, then it shouldn't also restrict legal (or what a general populous would consider completely fair) use.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feste
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).
Your argument re: the purpose of laws is well-grounded, and through the discussions so far, it's clear that I will need to define what I'm getting at more. Industry-standard DRM measures currently suck at discerning between legitimate consumers and illegitimate consumers. You're not supposed to speed on the way to work to make up for lost time. And if you get caught, then you pay for that risk. But you don't see speed governors on your car that, say, top you out based on the speed limit of the road you're on. You still have the choice. But in the case of this article, I feel that John the high school teacher should have been able to watch a movie that he purchased the rights to consume on any monitor he was capable of hooking his laptop up to. Had John used the DVD version of the same movie, I don't think he'd have had the same problem. That inequality is what irks me.
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:
HDCP support is not a choice for Apple. Anyone who wants to push HD content must be compliant - the content owners demand it. It is already in place in all the HD content we watch - you just don't or rarely notice because your HD home theater, HD TiVo, HD Cable DVR etc. is already compliant as is your HDTV. All we are seeing here is a glitch where a legacy technology (VGA) comes up against a new standard (HDCP) and something breaks. The studios have little incentive to create a workaround more than the 480p downsampling they already claim to have, and VGA is (slowly) dying out as a video standard. Apple should fix that failure (lack of downsampling).
If you care about HD on your computer, you have to use DVI or better. If you are OK with SD, then keep on trucking with VGA.
Bitching about HDCP is like King Canute demanding the tide go back. Feel free to protest by not buying HD content from iTunes, but don't think that you will get any better experience from otherHD or Blu-Ray.
Also - good luck with Vista in avoiding HDCP - FAIL. Go Linux, let us know how that goes.
Massive over reaction.
PS This doesn't mean I like DRM but it's not Apple's job to fight our battles. HDCP is, on balance, good business for them (enables HD content) since most people will watch it over HDCP compliant setups.
PPS - Apple hasn't put out anything with a VGA port as a primary connection for a long time (though you can get and use the adapters) - most mac users are already HDCP compliant.
Comments
Now I'm REALLY glad I bought the previous gen MacBook Pro (Amazon, $1444) instead of one of the latest machines.
Looks like I'll still get screwed eventually by this Nazi BS, but not for 4 years or so.
...
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.
The purpose of HDCP is to stop an analog hole. If you could plug display port or DVI into an VGA cable. Recording devices could record a pristine and DRM free copy of the content.
WOW. This is pretty lame.
Now I'm REALLY glad I bought the previous gen MacBook Pro (Amazon, $1444) instead of one of the latest machines.
Looks like I'll still get screwed eventually by this Nazi BS, but not for 4 years or so.
...
Aren't you one of the ones so keen on Blu-ray? This same DRM would come with it.
I don't understand why the restriction should apply to VGA displays. I understand HDMI and DVI requiring HDCP compliance.
So you can't take that VGA feed and copy it. The CP in HDCP is for Copy Protection. iTunes should down-convert to 480p in this case; that's the only mistake on Apple's part.
Apple OPPOSES DRM, publicly
By your own words, you admit Apple and Steve are hypocrites then.
WOW. This is pretty lame.
Now I'm REALLY glad I bought the previous gen MacBook Pro (Amazon, $1444) instead of one of the latest machines.
Looks like I'll still get screwed eventually by this Nazi BS, but not for 4 years or so.
...
How? If you had a DVI monitor and no one told you you wouldn't even know. Oh the horror!!
If you "just won't stand for this" and expect Apple to change... you might as well get good at creating hand puppets with that non-HDCP projector!
It's one of those times when you ask yourself "what's getting upset going to do?"
Aren't you one of the ones so keen on Blu-ray? This same DRM would come with it.
I've never said anything terribly pro or con on Blu-Ray, except that I thought it was better than HD-DVD, and that while it will be replaced by digital downloads, that process will take a long time due to bandwidth limitations.
You have me confused with someone else.
...
I've never said anything terribly pro or con on Blu-Ray, except that I thought it was better than HD-DVD, and that while it will be replaced by digital downloads, that process will take a long time due to bandwidth limitations.
You have me confused with someone else.
...
Alright, I'm trying to keep all of your outrages straight.
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.
If you really cared to make a difference, you'd not buy the content and not pirate it from a torrent. If the studios saw declining sales and declining torrent downloads, they couldn't use piracy as a lame rationalization for DRM that they do now.
Besides, you don't have a right to use their products. They can put whatever DRM on it that they like. It doesn't mean you have a right to steal it just because you really want it.
Simply stealing it sends them a message that you're a thief. Letting them know their product isn't important enough to you to use at all and that if they removed DRM they'd have your money will send a much more powerful message.
How? If you had a DVI monitor and no one told you you wouldn't even know. Oh the horror!!
Oh, Apple must love you. Such a good little boy.
...
OK, but I think you are changing your argument here. Let me quote from your original post:
and
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...
Conceded, and my meaning was not so much over the matter of ownership in that sense. I do own many msuic CDs and I know that I only own the right to consume that music. But my beef is simple that if a DRM is going to restrict illegal uses of media, then it shouldn't also restrict legal (or what a general populous would consider completely fair) use.
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).
Your argument re: the purpose of laws is well-grounded, and through the discussions so far, it's clear that I will need to define what I'm getting at more. Industry-standard DRM measures currently suck at discerning between legitimate consumers and illegitimate consumers. You're not supposed to speed on the way to work to make up for lost time. And if you get caught, then you pay for that risk. But you don't see speed governors on your car that, say, top you out based on the speed limit of the road you're on. You still have the choice. But in the case of this article, I feel that John the high school teacher should have been able to watch a movie that he purchased the rights to consume on any monitor he was capable of hooking his laptop up to. Had John used the DVD version of the same movie, I don't think he'd have had the same problem. That inequality is what irks me.
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
Do you actually think it was Apple's decision to include HDCP and not the studios? Do you think they wanted to do this?
Because of the studio's insistence on HDCP, Apple's choice was to sell it with HDCP, or not have it to sell at all.
Alright, I'm trying to keep all of your outrages straight.
Hey, I feel for ya. I have a hard time keeping all of your various arguments for why Apple is always right straight too.
...
I had no idea that people were as clueless as this.
What did some of you all think when we media mavens were
ranting about DRM being excessive in the new formats?
HDCP is a given for any current and forthcoming HD content and
With Blu-ray it's even worse ("It's a bag of hurt" says Jobs).
In fact you should be HAPPY that Apple has finally implemented HDCP
support. It now means the road is paved for adding Blu-ray and other
HD technologies. Sure...you'll have to buy a new monitor perhaps but hell
you know you need the new hotness anyways.
Hey, I feel for ya. I have a hard time keeping all of your various arguments for why Apple is always right straight too.
...
Oh of course, I've never ever thought Apple has done one thing wrong, ever......
Oh of course, I've never ever thought Apple has done one thing wrong, ever......
Pretty much.
...
If you care about HD on your computer, you have to use DVI or better. If you are OK with SD, then keep on trucking with VGA.
Bitching about HDCP is like King Canute demanding the tide go back. Feel free to protest by not buying HD content from iTunes, but don't think that you will get any better experience from otherHD or Blu-Ray.
Also - good luck with Vista in avoiding HDCP - FAIL. Go Linux, let us know how that goes.
Massive over reaction.
PS This doesn't mean I like DRM but it's not Apple's job to fight our battles. HDCP is, on balance, good business for them (enables HD content) since most people will watch it over HDCP compliant setups.
PPS - Apple hasn't put out anything with a VGA port as a primary connection for a long time (though you can get and use the adapters) - most mac users are already HDCP compliant.
I know that the cost of each iPod in Europe includes a piracy-tax applied to the price.
Would you care to provide proof of that?