Anything potentially capable of keeping Hollywood drivel from the eyes and minds of the worlds population is fine by me. SONY, Hitachi, Sanyo, et al... all the big names in display technology should make displays and TV's which block any film and TV programme emanating from the US.
The rest of the world can then remain blissfully ignorant of the American people's ignorance.
way to encourage piracy. this isn't apple's fault, it's the industry's fault for bowing to the RIAA/MPAA, although i didn't expect apple to follow the trend and impose restrictions on their own content.
personally, i couldn't care less, because i don't buy any digital media that contains DRM (so since there is basically no video content sold without DRM, i don't buy any. i suggest you do the same) DRM and other protective technologies are fundamentally wrong, and i don't think i need to repeat what's been already said about it.
Anything potentially capable of keeping Hollywood drivel from the eyes and minds of the worlds population is fine by me. SONY, Hitachi, Sanyo, et al... all the big names in display technology should make displays and TV's which block any film and TV programme emanating from the US.
The rest of the world can then remain blissfully ignorant of the American people's ignorance.
HDCP is just a an acronym: HollywooDCraP.
you've got the idea right, but that's make pretty little business sense to these companies. the best thing is for consumers to refuse DRM of any sort. the problem is that the whole concept is too hard for the average person to understand.
when more and more open devices are blocked by big content, people will start noticing that their videos don't play like their VHS tapes used to and will stop buying...and start pirating, even more. but we need to keep educating people who are less tech saavy.
I think my problem is that Apple is continuing to sell equipment to customers without informing them of the restrictions. I don't have a problem with HDCP per se, I understand the reasons behind it. But Apple's roll-out of this new standard (where the nature and timescale of the roll-out is completely controlled by Apple) seems like one step forward, two steps back to a lot of users. It's the law abiding users that lose out here.
Apple continue to tell customers that they can use their existing displays with the new MacBooks. That clearly isn't true. For instance, if you buy an Apple Cinema Display (that's an ironic name now isn't it) it's not going to work fully with the current laptop offerings or any future Apple hardware sporting the DisplayPort interface. When I say work 'fully' I mean you can't continue to enjoy the same functionality you enjoy today.
So Apple have adopted a video interface where:
1. CPUs without a DisplayPort interface cannot drive a DisplayPort monitor
2. CPUs with a DisplayPort interface cannot drive anything but a DisplayPort monitor
Which effectively means that this new video interface is neither backwards nor forwards compatible, and the iTunes content you have already bought is now worthless. Will Apple be offering refunds for affected iTunes content? Probably not.
So, the stark reality is that if you are planning to purchase a new Cinema Display, that display won't work properly with any future hardware produced by Apple. Likewise, if you're planning on purchasing a new Apple Mac mini, iMac or Mac Pro, those CPUs will never be able to drive any future displays produced by Apple.
Not really Apples fault, dumb Hollywood are to blame. Well I don't intend to buy a Blue Ray player let alone a BD disc. This HD protection stuff is a pile of dog turd and it's overpriced. Another way to screw us into buy new stuff that does the same thing every couple of years. I reckon the recession will hit blue-ray hard - and they deserve it.
Using it isn't entirely Apple's fault, as the movie studios probably forced it upon them. Implementing it without bothering to notify the users, now that is Apple's fault. Users are more willing to live with restrictions if said restrictions are known before hand. That switcher money goes bye bye if the general public thinks Apple is untrustworthy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
While all true, this was inevitable. The only shocking thing to me is that it wasn't included earlier. However, if you didn't want to use ITS because of DRM then you aren't losing anything as this doesn't affect DVDs.
PS: I wonder how many AI posters are against this HDCP, but also keep asking for Blu-ray.
Blu-Ray is designed to keep playing in a lower resolution if the output source isn't HDCP. Apple's way is complete denial of service.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tibbsy
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.
Now, look at the alternative to option 3: you can download a DRM-free, near-same quality product for free from who-knows-where. And you can delete it, you can give it to someone else, and you can watch it wherever you want in whatever way you want. DRM woefully restricts rights you should have to something that you pay money for and thus (theoretically) own. Understand that my point isn't "piracy wins, legitimacy loses": it's that right now, scenario 3 and scenario 2 are black and white different, even though for consumers the end is the same. I buy music on iTunes and I think it's a fabulous service. 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.
Agreed. One of the reasons digital movies have not taken off like digital music is because you have to deal with a bunch of restrictions that aren't there in physical media. If I buy an album on iTunes the only thing I don't get is a copy of the CD booklet. I have the same options and rights with that music that I do if I would have bought it in a store. If I want to listen to that music at a place other than my iPod, I can burn that music to a CD. There is no risk buying digital music.
If I buy a movie off of iTunes, not only don't I get the bonus features we've come to expect from a DVD, but I'm restricted to a computer, iPod/iPhone, or AppleTV. I can't rip a copy onto a DVD to play in my portable DVD play, bring it to watch at someone else's house, or import my existing DVD library to a digital format without a program like handbreak. Now they can dictate what displays you can or cannot do. That might be the straw that broke the camel's back for some who have started to buy into digital movies or were thinking about it. If you spend money you have no guarantee that you can use your purchase without needing to make a major purchase on a new display or projector. Unless things start going the other way and you receive the same rights with movies as you do with a music, digital movies are no threat to replace DVDs.
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.
I'm sure it was, a concession but I think the issue there is that Apple wasn't upfront about implementing HDCP. It took a teacher not being watch a movie for anyone to know that HDCP was even there. Instead of informing users about it, they hid in in the legalize that very few read anyhow.
I'm sure it was, a concession but I think the issue there is that Apple wasn't upfront about implementing HDCP. It took a teacher not being watch a movie for anyone to know that HDCP was even there. Instead of informing users about it, they hid in in the legalize that very few read anyhow.
I wouldn't read too much into it at this point. As this thread as shown, their are some unanswere questions. Like, why would their be HDCP on an SD iTS video?
I'm glad I didn't buy that new macbook at this point. This WHOLE IDEA is ridiculous...you're in serious danger of losing a WHOLE LOT OF SALES with this one...
way to encourage piracy. this isn't apple's fault, it's the industry's fault for bowing to the RIAA/MPAA, although i didn't expect apple to follow the trend and impose restrictions on their own content.
Content purchased from iTunes Store isn't Apples... not any more than the Blu-rays I bought from Amazon this week are "Amazon's content". That's the point of this.
If Apple wants to distribute HD content, which is the way of the future, then they have to implement the industry's safeguards.
I'm glad I didn't buy that new macbook at this point. This WHOLE IDEA is ridiculous...you're in serious danger of losing a WHOLE LOT OF SALES with this one...
I think that a lot of fans really overestimate the market segment they are in. 99% of people won't give a damn about this. Most of the verbal 1% that do have absolutely no idea what they are talking about, as evidenced by a couple of Apple forums the past day or so.
I really don't understand the anger though. People are acting like Apple has somehow suddenly turned to the dark side, but really remember this... Apple has incorporated DRM on iTunes music since day 1. What's new here?
Plus, did they have a choise? Not really... not if they intent to distribute HD video.
I think that a lot of fans really overestimate the market segment they are in. 99% of people won't give a damn about this.
Ppl who say things like that tend to be pretty out of touch with the younger demographic- say 18-to-29 year olds- who DO tend to care about things like this.
The number of ppl who are unhappy with the DRM situ is obviously higher than 1%, especially in that age group.
If you're trying to whistle past the graveyard, perhaps a better argument is, "Ahh, damn kids, they don't have any money anyway!"
To be followed by the ever-popular, "GET OFF MY LAWN!!!"
I wouldn't read too much into it at this point. As this thread as shown, their are some unanswere questions. Like, why would their be HDCP on an SD iTS video?
YOU WILL LOSE SALES of your hardware with this BS.
But much more importantly, you will lose the SYMPATHY AND GOOD WILL of users.
That latter is devastating. For awhile, everything will seem to go well, and then, people will defect - IN DROVES.
This is a deadly serious matter. Some things are non-negotiable. If this BS goes on, time to consider another platform. Thank god for Linux.
I doubt very much this will halt or reverse their sales. What it will do however is kill any chance for the iTunes movie store to really get off the ground. When you are trying to convince people that a digital file is better than a physical disc they can hold on to the last thing you wanna do is throw up more road blocks.
I predict many lawsuits out of this & the death of either HDCP on the Macs or the death of iTunes use of this specific copy protection. Remember this only effects iTunes content that has that built in protection enabled.
rubbish, Apple drives the DRM to ensure ITMS content can only be played on the device of THEIR choosing....ipod.
That's a long-dead anti-Apple myth. Content owners (RIAA, movie industry) are the drivers behind DRM. Apple's devices sell just great on their OWN merits (no lock-in needed) with ease-of-use being an obvious benefit of iPod-iTunes integration. The iPod was a runaway success before the iTunes Music Store even existed.
Apple has stated clearly that they oppose DRM, and have put their money where there mouth is, offering DRM-free iTunes Plus tracks that will play on any device modern enough to support MP4/AAC.
Does anyone really think that the RIAA would have allowed the iTunes Music Store to exist without DRM? That they were fine with the music being DRM-free but Apple imposed DRM anyway? That history is well-established, and it's the content owners who demand DRM.
Why are only some songs available DRM-free? Because not all content owners will ALLOW iTunes sales to be DRM-free. Why do those same labels allow DRM-free on Amazon? Because they want to punish Apple's success and promote a strong competitor. They are giving Amazon an intentional advantage that they won't give Apple--or won't give it unless Apple pays extra for it. (And for once I like the result of the content-owners actions: their support for Amazon gives me a nice alternative store that I'm glad to have.)
Interestingly, a rumor today is that Apple will even start selling MP3 tracks. Don't know about that one!
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.
Thanks and totally agree.
And thanks to, let me see here...minderbinder, GQB, rcfa, and sdbryan for answering my request for some insight on the point of HDCP encryption on the output device, each in your own unique, well-explained way.
I think that a lot of fans really overestimate the market segment they are in. 99% of people won't give a damn about this. Most of the verbal 1% that do have absolutely no idea what they are talking about, as evidenced by a couple of Apple forums the past day or so.
I have to disagree with you here. People will notice this, if they have an monitor that has a DVI or VGA port that doesn't have HDCP support and they rent a movie to play on it, they will get this error and they will notice. When they ask their technology literate friends what is going on, the technology literate person will tell them it is because of DRM. That because the movie and music industry lives in constant fear of some people somewhere doing illegal activities with these products, the movie and music industries put DRM on these products.
This is to anyone outside of the technology world a stupid stupid circle. It puts the consumer at another disadvantage and the movie and music industry out millions of dollars on copy protection software that has only managed to stop legitimate use and not done a single thing to stop people who are taking part in illegal activities. But no one wants to talk about this. No one ever wants to fix this in a reasonable way. All they want to do is slap another new protection/restriction measure on the content, because heck it feels good when we are "proactive."
That's a long-dead anti-Apple myth. Content owners (RIAA, movie industry) are the drivers behind DRM. Apple's devices sell just great on their OWN merits (no lock-in needed) with ease-of-use being an obvious benefit of iPod-iTunes integration. The iPod was a runaway success before the iTunes Music Store even existed.
Apple has stated clearly that they oppose DRM, and have put their money where there mouth is, offering DRM-free iTunes Plus tracks that will play on any device modern enough to support MP4/AAC.
Does anyone really think that the RIAA would have allowed the iTunes Music Store to exist without DRM? That they were fine with the music being DRM-free but Apple imposed DRM anyway? That history is well-established, and it's the content owners who demand DRM.
Why are only some songs available DRM-free? Because not all content owners will ALLOW iTunes sales to be DRM-free. Why do those same labels allow DRM-free on Amazon? Because they want to punish Apple's success and promote a strong competitor. They are giving Amazon an intentional advantage that they won't give Apple--or won't give it unless Apple pays extra for it. (And for once I like the result of the content-owners actions: their support for Amazon gives me a nice alternative store that I'm glad to have.)
Interestingly, a rumor today is that Apple will even start selling MP3 tracks. Don't know about that one!
more rubbish, if Apple was serious about getting rid of DRM then iTunes plus would sell at the same price as normal and EVERY track would be DRM free.
ITMS is now one of the worlds biggest vendors of music surely they can stand up to this if they 'really' wanted to do this..?
Comments
or would this include any HD movies you make yourself using this hardwear?
The rest of the world can then remain blissfully ignorant of the American people's ignorance.
HDCP is just a an acronym: HollywooDCraP.
personally, i couldn't care less, because i don't buy any digital media that contains DRM (so since there is basically no video content sold without DRM, i don't buy any. i suggest you do the same) DRM and other protective technologies are fundamentally wrong, and i don't think i need to repeat what's been already said about it.
Anything potentially capable of keeping Hollywood drivel from the eyes and minds of the worlds population is fine by me. SONY, Hitachi, Sanyo, et al... all the big names in display technology should make displays and TV's which block any film and TV programme emanating from the US.
The rest of the world can then remain blissfully ignorant of the American people's ignorance.
HDCP is just a an acronym: HollywooDCraP.
you've got the idea right, but that's make pretty little business sense to these companies. the best thing is for consumers to refuse DRM of any sort. the problem is that the whole concept is too hard for the average person to understand.
when more and more open devices are blocked by big content, people will start noticing that their videos don't play like their VHS tapes used to and will stop buying...and start pirating, even more. but we need to keep educating people who are less tech saavy.
Apple continue to tell customers that they can use their existing displays with the new MacBooks. That clearly isn't true. For instance, if you buy an Apple Cinema Display (that's an ironic name now isn't it) it's not going to work fully with the current laptop offerings or any future Apple hardware sporting the DisplayPort interface. When I say work 'fully' I mean you can't continue to enjoy the same functionality you enjoy today.
So Apple have adopted a video interface where:
1. CPUs without a DisplayPort interface cannot drive a DisplayPort monitor
2. CPUs with a DisplayPort interface cannot drive anything but a DisplayPort monitor
Which effectively means that this new video interface is neither backwards nor forwards compatible, and the iTunes content you have already bought is now worthless. Will Apple be offering refunds for affected iTunes content? Probably not.
So, the stark reality is that if you are planning to purchase a new Cinema Display, that display won't work properly with any future hardware produced by Apple. Likewise, if you're planning on purchasing a new Apple Mac mini, iMac or Mac Pro, those CPUs will never be able to drive any future displays produced by Apple.
Way to go Apple!
Not really Apples fault, dumb Hollywood are to blame. Well I don't intend to buy a Blue Ray player let alone a BD disc. This HD protection stuff is a pile of dog turd and it's overpriced. Another way to screw us into buy new stuff that does the same thing every couple of years. I reckon the recession will hit blue-ray hard - and they deserve it.
Using it isn't entirely Apple's fault, as the movie studios probably forced it upon them. Implementing it without bothering to notify the users, now that is Apple's fault. Users are more willing to live with restrictions if said restrictions are known before hand. That switcher money goes bye bye if the general public thinks Apple is untrustworthy.
While all true, this was inevitable. The only shocking thing to me is that it wasn't included earlier. However, if you didn't want to use ITS because of DRM then you aren't losing anything as this doesn't affect DVDs.
PS: I wonder how many AI posters are against this HDCP, but also keep asking for Blu-ray.
Blu-Ray is designed to keep playing in a lower resolution if the output source isn't HDCP. Apple's way is complete denial of service.
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.
Now, look at the alternative to option 3: you can download a DRM-free, near-same quality product for free from who-knows-where. And you can delete it, you can give it to someone else, and you can watch it wherever you want in whatever way you want. DRM woefully restricts rights you should have to something that you pay money for and thus (theoretically) own. Understand that my point isn't "piracy wins, legitimacy loses": it's that right now, scenario 3 and scenario 2 are black and white different, even though for consumers the end is the same. I buy music on iTunes and I think it's a fabulous service. 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.
Agreed. One of the reasons digital movies have not taken off like digital music is because you have to deal with a bunch of restrictions that aren't there in physical media. If I buy an album on iTunes the only thing I don't get is a copy of the CD booklet. I have the same options and rights with that music that I do if I would have bought it in a store. If I want to listen to that music at a place other than my iPod, I can burn that music to a CD. There is no risk buying digital music.
If I buy a movie off of iTunes, not only don't I get the bonus features we've come to expect from a DVD, but I'm restricted to a computer, iPod/iPhone, or AppleTV. I can't rip a copy onto a DVD to play in my portable DVD play, bring it to watch at someone else's house, or import my existing DVD library to a digital format without a program like handbreak. Now they can dictate what displays you can or cannot do. That might be the straw that broke the camel's back for some who have started to buy into digital movies or were thinking about it. If you spend money you have no guarantee that you can use your purchase without needing to make a major purchase on a new display or projector. Unless things start going the other way and you receive the same rights with movies as you do with a music, digital movies are no threat to replace DVDs.
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.
I'm sure it was, a concession but I think the issue there is that Apple wasn't upfront about implementing HDCP. It took a teacher not being watch a movie for anyone to know that HDCP was even there. Instead of informing users about it, they hid in in the legalize that very few read anyhow.
I'm sure it was, a concession but I think the issue there is that Apple wasn't upfront about implementing HDCP. It took a teacher not being watch a movie for anyone to know that HDCP was even there. Instead of informing users about it, they hid in in the legalize that very few read anyhow.
I wouldn't read too much into it at this point. As this thread as shown, their are some unanswere questions. Like, why would their be HDCP on an SD iTS video?
Content purchased from iTunes Store isn't Apples... not any more than the Blu-rays I bought from Amazon this week are "Amazon's content". That's the point of this.
If Apple wants to distribute HD content, which is the way of the future, then they have to implement the industry's safeguards.
I'm glad I didn't buy that new macbook at this point. This WHOLE IDEA is ridiculous...you're in serious danger of losing a WHOLE LOT OF SALES with this one...
I think that a lot of fans really overestimate the market segment they are in. 99% of people won't give a damn about this. Most of the verbal 1% that do have absolutely no idea what they are talking about, as evidenced by a couple of Apple forums the past day or so.
I really don't understand the anger though. People are acting like Apple has somehow suddenly turned to the dark side, but really remember this... Apple has incorporated DRM on iTunes music since day 1. What's new here?
Plus, did they have a choise? Not really... not if they intent to distribute HD video.
I think that a lot of fans really overestimate the market segment they are in. 99% of people won't give a damn about this.
Ppl who say things like that tend to be pretty out of touch with the younger demographic- say 18-to-29 year olds- who DO tend to care about things like this.
The number of ppl who are unhappy with the DRM situ is obviously higher than 1%, especially in that age group.
If you're trying to whistle past the graveyard, perhaps a better argument is, "Ahh, damn kids, they don't have any money anyway!"
To be followed by the ever-popular, "GET OFF MY LAWN!!!"
...
I wouldn't read too much into it at this point. As this thread as shown, their are some unanswere questions. Like, why would their be HDCP on an SD iTS video?
Lots of questions, but no answers from Cupertino.
A simple and stark warning to Apple:
YOU WILL LOSE SALES of your hardware with this BS.
But much more importantly, you will lose the SYMPATHY AND GOOD WILL of users.
That latter is devastating. For awhile, everything will seem to go well, and then, people will defect - IN DROVES.
This is a deadly serious matter. Some things are non-negotiable. If this BS goes on, time to consider another platform. Thank god for Linux.
I doubt very much this will halt or reverse their sales. What it will do however is kill any chance for the iTunes movie store to really get off the ground. When you are trying to convince people that a digital file is better than a physical disc they can hold on to the last thing you wanna do is throw up more road blocks.
I predict many lawsuits out of this & the death of either HDCP on the Macs or the death of iTunes use of this specific copy protection. Remember this only effects iTunes content that has that built in protection enabled.
rubbish, Apple drives the DRM to ensure ITMS content can only be played on the device of THEIR choosing....ipod.
That's a long-dead anti-Apple myth. Content owners (RIAA, movie industry) are the drivers behind DRM. Apple's devices sell just great on their OWN merits (no lock-in needed) with ease-of-use being an obvious benefit of iPod-iTunes integration. The iPod was a runaway success before the iTunes Music Store even existed.
Apple has stated clearly that they oppose DRM, and have put their money where there mouth is, offering DRM-free iTunes Plus tracks that will play on any device modern enough to support MP4/AAC.
Does anyone really think that the RIAA would have allowed the iTunes Music Store to exist without DRM? That they were fine with the music being DRM-free but Apple imposed DRM anyway? That history is well-established, and it's the content owners who demand DRM.
Why are only some songs available DRM-free? Because not all content owners will ALLOW iTunes sales to be DRM-free. Why do those same labels allow DRM-free on Amazon? Because they want to punish Apple's success and promote a strong competitor. They are giving Amazon an intentional advantage that they won't give Apple--or won't give it unless Apple pays extra for it. (And for once I like the result of the content-owners actions: their support for Amazon gives me a nice alternative store that I'm glad to have.)
Interestingly, a rumor today is that Apple will even start selling MP3 tracks. Don't know about that one!
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.
Thanks and totally agree.
And thanks to, let me see here...minderbinder, GQB, rcfa, and sdbryan for answering my request for some insight on the point of HDCP encryption on the output device, each in your own unique, well-explained way.
and the HDCP protection is probably in the file itself
HDCP doesn't work that way.
I think that a lot of fans really overestimate the market segment they are in. 99% of people won't give a damn about this. Most of the verbal 1% that do have absolutely no idea what they are talking about, as evidenced by a couple of Apple forums the past day or so.
I have to disagree with you here. People will notice this, if they have an monitor that has a DVI or VGA port that doesn't have HDCP support and they rent a movie to play on it, they will get this error and they will notice. When they ask their technology literate friends what is going on, the technology literate person will tell them it is because of DRM. That because the movie and music industry lives in constant fear of some people somewhere doing illegal activities with these products, the movie and music industries put DRM on these products.
This is to anyone outside of the technology world a stupid stupid circle. It puts the consumer at another disadvantage and the movie and music industry out millions of dollars on copy protection software that has only managed to stop legitimate use and not done a single thing to stop people who are taking part in illegal activities. But no one wants to talk about this. No one ever wants to fix this in a reasonable way. All they want to do is slap another new protection/restriction measure on the content, because heck it feels good when we are "proactive."
That's a long-dead anti-Apple myth. Content owners (RIAA, movie industry) are the drivers behind DRM. Apple's devices sell just great on their OWN merits (no lock-in needed) with ease-of-use being an obvious benefit of iPod-iTunes integration. The iPod was a runaway success before the iTunes Music Store even existed.
Apple has stated clearly that they oppose DRM, and have put their money where there mouth is, offering DRM-free iTunes Plus tracks that will play on any device modern enough to support MP4/AAC.
Does anyone really think that the RIAA would have allowed the iTunes Music Store to exist without DRM? That they were fine with the music being DRM-free but Apple imposed DRM anyway? That history is well-established, and it's the content owners who demand DRM.
Why are only some songs available DRM-free? Because not all content owners will ALLOW iTunes sales to be DRM-free. Why do those same labels allow DRM-free on Amazon? Because they want to punish Apple's success and promote a strong competitor. They are giving Amazon an intentional advantage that they won't give Apple--or won't give it unless Apple pays extra for it. (And for once I like the result of the content-owners actions: their support for Amazon gives me a nice alternative store that I'm glad to have.)
Interestingly, a rumor today is that Apple will even start selling MP3 tracks. Don't know about that one!
more rubbish, if Apple was serious about getting rid of DRM then iTunes plus would sell at the same price as normal and EVERY track would be DRM free.
ITMS is now one of the worlds biggest vendors of music surely they can stand up to this if they 'really' wanted to do this..?
You can tell when Jobs lies...his lips move.