Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

New Copy Protection to Make Playing DVDs on a PC Difficult

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Wed Oct 11, 2006 03:18 PM
from the thankfully-there-are-alternatives-to-windows dept.
Operating Systems Software Windows Hardware
The Cowardly Pirate writes "ZDNet's Hardware 2.0 blog is reporting that new copy-protection software for DVD publishers from a company called ProtectDisc not only makes it difficult to rip movies that you've purchased but also prevents discs from playing in a Windows PC at all. From the article: 'Protect DVD-Video is the brainchild of a company called ProtectDisc. Part of the copy-protection mechanism is a non-standard UDF (Universal Disc Format) file system which results in the IFO file on the DVD (this is the file responsible for storing information on chapters, subtitles and audio tracks) appearing to the PC as being zero bytes long.'"
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

New Copy Protection to Make Playing DVDs on a PC Difficult 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • DVD Jon (Score:5, Funny)

    by doctor_nation (924358) on Wednesday October 11 2006, @03:19PM (#16398883)
    Countdown to DVD Jon hack 3..2..1..

    • Re:DVD Jon (Score:5, Interesting)

      by norminator (784674) on Wednesday October 11 2006, @03:36PM (#16399221)
      Or: Gentlemen, start your magic markers!
      Or: Fingers on the shift key!

      It's always great to hear about new hacks, designed to keep us from watching our purchased content, likely to keep some legitimate players from being able to play the content, and which will be quickly and simply foiled by some low-tech solution. It's hard to believe companies want to be in this business of "content protection" (but of course they are, because a solid, secure protection system is the holy grail for content providers). Thanks a lot, Hollywood, we love you, too.

    • obDoctrow (Score:5, Funny)

      by dculberson (1012365) on Wednesday October 11 2006, @03:38PM (#16399267)
      "Nobody woke up this morning wanting to do less with their DVDs!"

      • Re:obDoctrow (Score:5, Interesting)

        by b100dian (771163) on Wednesday October 11 2006, @04:55PM (#16400481) Homepage Journal
        "Protect DVD-Video is the brainchild of a company called ProtectDisc"
        I first read "brainchild" as "child's brain"
        I still do.
        You see, whenever somebody invents a such pathetic copy protection for specific software (read: UDF filesystem driver) you have to keep in mind that the only device that is 100% surely programmable to avoid the protection is.. TA-DA.. the COMPUTER!!! [Applause]
        This is a 1-day job for any CD/DVD writer software author, to read the raw and use it in another way.
        So, some person will lose 1 day in life walking around this `protection`, the other `hackers` will lose 1 googling minute for finding, downloading, installing and finally playing the DVD.

        This is why the entropy principle is there to stay! These sort of thoughts/inventions will never _create_ information :))!

        • You misunderstand their motives (Score:5, Insightful)

          by paranode (671698) on Wednesday October 11 2006, @09:15PM (#16403277)
          They aren't trying to invent some technical masterpiece, but rather to make money off of the idiots at the studios who think this will actually protect their content. They are laughing all the way to the bank either way.

    • Re:DVD Jon (Score:5, Interesting)

      by davros866 (812083) on Wednesday October 11 2006, @03:52PM (#16399535)
      From the article:

      SlySoft have a product called AnyDVD which works in the background to automatically remove the copy protection of a DVD movie as soon as it's inserted into the drive. The other day they released an updated version of AnyDVD which effortlessly bypasses Protect DVD-Video.

  • Message to DVD industry: Byte Me! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by yagu (721525) * <yayagu AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday October 11 2006, @03:19PM (#16398885) Journal

    Just the other night we had more DVDs to watch than TVs and players. Our daughter wanted to watch her Smallville (purchased), and we were watching one of our circulating Blockbuster "mailer" DVDs.

    She was delighted when I showed her how to watch her DVD on the upstairs computer -- she hadn't known that was possible. Problem solved, everybody happy.

    But, now this? What the hey? So now potentially what she presumably knows about watching on an alternative device could not work, and she wouldn't know why -- yes, the article mentions the latest new "tool" that "effortlessly" bypasses the security, but again, What the Hey? She isn't going to know about that tool, or how to use it, and I'm about as sick and tired as I can be of setting up the workarounds for restrictions that shouldn't even exist.

    Interestingly, the article mentions (emphasis mine):

    As usual, I don't have a problem with anyone protecting their intellectual property and making sure that they are paid fairly for their work, but I am dismayed when, time after time, they seem to blur the line between fair use and piracy

    I only almost agree with that -- "they" in this case seem to be blurring the line between use-use and piracy. Each day I toss a coin to decide who annoys me more -- media "providers" or spammers. It's a close call.

    I used to wonder whether the DVD industry would totally shoot itself in the foot with the HD vs. BluRay DVD wars coupled with intrusive DRM, sending potential customers away in droves. If this new protection technology is for existing DVDs (it's not clear from the article), they could send existing DVD customers away in droves. I no longer about the sanity of the industry -- I worry about the sanity of artists allowing contracts for their "art" to be wrapped in technology like this, I wonder why they allow it.

    (Interesting (and I think important) aside: I recently updated the firmware on my Creative Vision:M mp3 player, a player I've absolutely loved for its features, ergonomics, screen quality, you name it, there was hardly a thing about it I could find fault with. As the new firmware was installing I browsed the release notes... looking for the standard blah blah blah on what's fixed, what's new. The very last line of the notes said (paraphrasing), This firmware upgrade will disable your FM recording capability(!). WTF? It was too late for me to stop the upgrade -- sure enough, I now have a Creative Vision:M sans FM recording capability, (a feature which I was quite fond of)! Creative doesn't say whether it's RIAA induced, I have no idea why they did this... but if it IS more DRM crap, what a crock!)

    (Other aside: I love that the ad for the slashdot page for the "read more" for me was an HD-DVD ad...)

    • Re: Message to DVD industry: Byte Me! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by sbrown123 (229895) on Wednesday October 11 2006, @03:23PM (#16398947) Homepage
      She isn't going to know about that tool, or how to use it, and I'm about as sick and tired as I can be of setting up the workarounds for restrictions that shouldn't even exist.

      Eventually only the hackers will be able to watch movies and play games on their computer.

    • Creative: prepare to pay the lawyers (Score:5, Interesting)

      by hirschma (187820) on Wednesday October 11 2006, @03:27PM (#16399041)
      IANAL, but if Creative, in any way, induced you to upgrade the firmware (i.e., it fixed an existing bug), then they have just handed the class action vultures a nice gift. Can't sell a product based on features, and then take them away.

      If you want to see Creative punished (you won't benefit, class action suits never actually benefit the consumer), take a screen grab of anything on their site that still shows this capability, and then email it to the proper vultures.

      jh

    • Don't call them artists... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by aztektum (170569) on Wednesday October 11 2006, @03:36PM (#16399223)
      As soon as contract negotiations over royalty payments and distribution expenses come into play, I feel they lose their "artist" status and are "entertainers."

      Artists to me are people that attempt to share a unique, creative and inspired vision through sound and vision (or the combination of the two.)

      (Yes I realize 'art' is subjective, but I'm talkin strictly to the movie/music type here.)

      When it comes to the **AA's and their international counterparts, all we get is rehashed, same old same old in order to service a businesses bottom line.

        • Re:Don't call them artists... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by aztektum (170569) on Wednesday October 11 2006, @04:59PM (#16400561)
          I knew someone would reply with comments along the lines of "So artists shouldn't be able to charge for their work?"

          First off, I didn't say that. I even noted at the bottom that I was refering to the **AA's specifically.

          Second, I hope I don't sound like a snob or something. I buy DVD's and have CD's. I'm just saying, my opinion is that, to me, they aren't "artists." They're more akin to a service provider. It's a business.

          An artist can charge for their wares, but by working under the banner of a giant corporation with a contract that says "You must produce x amount of work over y period of time." that isn't producing "true art" by my definition. That's no different than doing what a manager tells you to for any other company. That's a job.

          Art is more akin to science. It should be created for the pleasure, the interest and the mystique of thinking of new things, ideas, and the interest in sharing them.

          Can you charge for it? Sure. If you make something people want to pay for, then by all means.

          And the argument that "These people are screwed by **AA's and just trying to survive..." Fuck, I will bet dollars to donuts that most groups you hear on Clear Channel, see on MTV and who are prominently displayed up front at Best Buy just want lots of money. A lot of them even say it outloud. They aren't artists. At least not in my opinion. They entertain for a fee. They sell a service produced to generate the most income. Their decision to get into that line of work, under potentially shitty conditions, is their own choice.
    • Instructions to downgrade the firmware are here:

      http://www.epizenter.net/e107_plugins/forum/forum_ viewtopic.php?46417 [epizenter.net]

      I would send a nasty letter to Creative when you're done downgrading too, but that's just me. I know I sent one to Apple when they castrated iTunes' ability to share over the internet, a feature that I had used all the time to listen to my music while studying or working in another building.

      Companies need to know that we won't just bend over and let them fuck us with little "upgrades" like that, at least not without noticing.

    • Security policy (Score:5, Insightful)

      by complexmath (449417) on Wednesday October 11 2006, @04:13PM (#16399885)
      There's some kind of rule regarding security policy which states that if security is so tight as to be an obstacle to normal work, legitimate users will attempt to circumvent the security measures just so they can do their work at a reasonable level of efficiency (ie. without undue irritation). I think that rule applies to media security as well. Right now, media security measures are still largely invisible and legitimate use does "just work" for the most part. But what will happen if that changes? If the security measures become so draconian as to impede legitimate use, it's extremely likely that legitimate users who had never considered pirating will begin to look for ways to circumvent the system just to continue using the product in a convenient manner. Basically, I think it's quite likely that if media security measures get much tighter then the media companies will effectively create a consumer base of "pirates" as a simple reaction to the inconvenience the new security measures present. And once a person becomes used to the convenience presented by circumvention, it will be difficult to convince them to play by the rules again, even if future security measures are relaxed.

  • Ooh! More great news! (Score:5, Informative)

    by KingSkippus (799657) * on Wednesday October 11 2006, @03:20PM (#16398891) Homepage Journal

    I love reading stuff like this. I hope that they lock DVDs down so tight that no one can even play them on their regular players. Then, when the next blockbuster movie sell a grand total of four DVDs, maybe the movie and television studios will finally realize how much money this is costing them.

    And seriously, can I see a quick show of hands of everyone who thinks that this will keep people from copying DVDs?...

    Yeah, that's what I thought, and neither do I.

    • Re:Ooh! More great news! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jimicus (737525) on Wednesday October 11 2006, @03:34PM (#16399185) Homepage
      Then, when the next blockbuster movie sell a grand total of four DVDs, maybe the movie and television studios will finally realize how much money this is costing them.

      More likely they'll blame piracy.

      • Re:Ooh! More great news! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by joe 155 (937621) on Wednesday October 11 2006, @03:44PM (#16399381) Journal
        bingo, hit the nail on the head. This is what they are doing now anyway, sony says "hm, why aren't people buying our music... PIRACY! release the RIAA lawyers!"... they never seem to see the "our products are shit, you can't use them how everyone would think you should be able to and we rootkit your computer"

    • Re:Ooh! More great news! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by kent_eh (543303) on Wednesday October 11 2006, @04:25PM (#16400065)
      Actually, I have run into several DVDs (mostly Disney) that won't play on my set-top DVD player (says either "bad disk" or "wrong disk type"), but play fine on my computer.
      They will, however, play on my set-top after I "process" them on my computer.
      Is this what the movie industry wants?
      • Everyone in between is better off using a pirated copy, because it is just better.

        Agreed. I hardly even watch movies straight from DVD anymore. Even if I'm just going to watch it once, I just run them through HandBrake first. That way I don't have to deal with crappily designed menus, FBI warnings, and mandatory-view advertisements. (Because yes, Virginia, a "preview" is just an advertisement for another movie.)

        I've told more than one other person about HandBrake and now they do the same thing. I wouldn't call it quite "Grandma friendly" yet (although the stripped-down iPod version is) but it's pretty close. If the person you're instructing knows the difference between a Phillips screw and a Torx, they can probably deal with HandBrake.

  • Really? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Mysteerie (972719) on Wednesday October 11 2006, @03:22PM (#16398909) Homepage
    Movies are actually meant to be watched? I thought they were collectibles!

    • Movies: the Gathering (Score:5, Funny)

      by spun (1352) <.moc.oohay. .ta. .yranoituloverevol.> on Wednesday October 11 2006, @03:53PM (#16399557) Journal
      I can see it now...

      "I tap my 'Ghostbusters' and my 'Stripes' to power my Bill Murray's Sarcastic Comment Attack..."

      "Well, I counter with my Renee Zellweger's Pinchy Faced Squint Attack, so let's see, my Zellweger is destroyed, but your Murray takes six points of damage, and I tap my 'Showgirls' to power a Flashbulb of the Paparazzi and finish him off."

      "Damn! Your turn..."

  • Not a DVD (Score:5, Interesting)

    by LostCluster (625375) * on Wednesday October 11 2006, @03:23PM (#16398939) Homepage
    ...mechanism is a non-standard UDF A non-standard anything on a DVD makes it not a true DVD. We've seen this tried before on CDs and the response was that they'd have to stop using the "Compact Disc" trademark because that's only for people who follow the standard.

    • Re:Not a DVD (Score:5, Funny)

      by Scutter (18425) on Wednesday October 11 2006, @03:30PM (#16399101) Journal
      We've seen this tried before on CDs and the response was that they'd have to stop using the "Compact Disc" trademark because that's only for people who follow the standard.

      Yeah. That showed 'em.

      • Re:Not a DVD (Score:5, Insightful)

        by powerlord (28156) on Wednesday October 11 2006, @03:42PM (#16399339) Journal
        Yeah. That showed 'em.


        Actually, yes, it did.

        Suddenly we were provided with an easy to see visual clue that the enclosed disk may not be able to be used as we expect. This helped people avoid those disks that weren't compliant with the CD standard.

  • Bastards (Score:5, Informative)

    by Lost+Found (844289) on Wednesday October 11 2006, @03:23PM (#16398953)
    What makes me angry about this isn't that I won't be able to find movies online; hell, it's usually possible to get them before they're even available from Blockbuster. What's irritating is that I'm an honest customer of the MPAA. I have a huge shelf of DVDs. I'm a DVD collector. The first time I buy a DVD that has been engineered in such a way to not play, I'm going to return it and never buy a DVD again.

    Note: This doesn't mean I'm going to stop watching movies. Do the fucking math, MPAA.

  • XBox? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Apocalypse111 (597674) on Wednesday October 11 2006, @03:24PM (#16398965) Journal
    As I recall, the XBox operating system was based off some version of Windows (although HEAVILY modified). Also, as many (most in the /. crowd, I'd wager) know, the XBox is pretty much just a small form factor computer. I don't own a normal DVD player, I just use my XBox for this purpose. Would this mean that I would be unable to watch movies using this tech with my existing setup?

  • that's terrible (Score:5, Funny)

    by User 956 (568564) on Wednesday October 11 2006, @03:24PM (#16398975) Homepage
    new copy-protection software for DVD publishers from a company called ProtectDisc not only makes it difficult to rip movies that you've purchased but also prevents discs from playing in a Windows PC at all.

    I don't know about you, but the only DVDs I watch on my computer are in DIVX format and come from sweden. GG MPAA.

  • Nothing to see here (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 11 2006, @03:25PM (#16398989)
    It looks like this only effects the IFO on the disc. VLC (along with many other players) can play the VOB files without using an IFO.

  • UDF? (Score:5, Funny)

    by object88 (568048) on Wednesday October 11 2006, @03:25PM (#16399001)
    Part of the copy-protection mechanism is a non-standard UDF (Universal Disc Format) file system...

    Not very universal if it's non-standard, now, is it?

  • A workaround already exists (Score:5, Informative)

    by fructose (948996) on Wednesday October 11 2006, @03:26PM (#16399019) Homepage

    Of course the encryption is already broken. From the article:

    SlySoft have a product called AnyDVD [slysoft.com] which works in the background to automatically remove the copy protection of a DVD movie as soon as it's inserted into the drive. The other day they released an updated version of AnyDVD which effortlessly bypasses Protect DVD-Video.
    Nice try. I'll give you a cookie.

  • Nonstandard format- (Score:5, Insightful)

    by IWantMoreSpamPlease (571972) on Wednesday October 11 2006, @03:28PM (#16399071) Homepage Journal
    If it's a non-standard format, then it isn't a DVD....

  • Home Theater PCs (Score:5, Interesting)

    by uberhombre (959917) on Wednesday October 11 2006, @03:30PM (#16399111)
    This will lock out people that use their PCs as Media Center PCs to play DVDs, watch TV, etc., and they usually spend quite a bit of money on tvs, dvds, sound systems, so this may not play out too well.

  • anydvd has already bypassed this (Score:5, Interesting)

    by schnikies79 (788746) on Wednesday October 11 2006, @03:31PM (#16399119)
    On 10 October 2006, SlySoft released a press release: AnyDVD beats new copy protection "Protect DVD-Video"

    With the latest release of AnyDVD, version 6.0.8.0, SlySoft has again confirmed its position as the market leader in providing video DVD decryption software. With this version it is now possible to bypass the new "Protect DVD-Video" copy protection which first appeared on the DVD "Silent Hill" (german rental version).

    Among other mechanisms, Protect DVD-Video comes up with a messed-up UDF file system, in which an IFO file appears with a zero-byte length on a regular PC. The unsurprising result is that these DVDs will refuse to run on a Windows PC with Windows Media Player, Windows Media Center Edition or all software players that are based on DirectShow (e.g. the very popular ZoomPlayer).

    "With this copy protection the film industry clearly overshot the mark", says Giancarlo Bettini, CEO at SlySoft. "The premium customer who spent a lot of money on his multimedia home cinema and who, for quality reasons, would never even consider watching anything else but an original DVD, is being slapped in the face. These customers with their shelves stuffed with rightfully aquired DVDs, can't watch their videos."

    This is incredible nonsense! Any Media Center freak will have no choice but to install AnyDVD on his PC in order to watch his original DVD." "The film industry should actually thank us for taking care of their premium customers so well. Maybe one day I'll be nominated for an Oscar", Bettini adds with a grin.

    Background info: The company ProtectDisc is being run by Volkmar Breitfeld, also managing director of ACE (FluxDVD copy protection). Remarkably enough, Volkmar Breitfeld was previously known for creating copy protection circumventing products like InstantCopy or InstantCD/DVD, before he changed fronts to selling copy protection mechanisms.

  • Filesystems (Score:5, Interesting)

    by StormReaver (59959) on Wednesday October 11 2006, @03:42PM (#16399341)
    "Part of the copy-protection mechanism is a non-standard UDF...file system which results in the IFO file on the DVD...appearing to the PC as being zero bytes long."

    Then how does a dedicated DVD player read the data?

  • How this works (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Teancum (67324) <robert_horning@NOSpAm.netzero.net> on Wednesday October 11 2006, @03:55PM (#16399605) Homepage Journal
    This is mainly a little DVD-Video tidbit to explain how technically this works.

    For the DVD-Video spec, the actual file system being used is irrelevant and is mainly used to "boot" the disc and discover where the very first data sector is located at on the DVD disc. From then on, at least in theory, all of the navigation to the rest of the DVD media is handled internally within the DVD-Video files themselves, including the MPEG data, as the navigation within the video data is handled with the use of special navigation packets.

    So for a set-top box on your home television, the data scanners ignore the UTF file format and just march through the data according to the DVD-Video specs, not even aware that there might be a problem. Besides, these set-top boxes have just enough of a file system BIOS just to get to the "root" sector and not much more. Sometimes the "higher-end" ones will try to scan for MP3s or other kinds of media files, but that is a bonus and not required for playing the video data itself.

    As for PCs, the operating systems are obviously designed to trust in the file system to believe that what the file system is telling you is also correct. Obviously you can mess with the order of the files and make something playable only on PCs and not set-top boxes, but usually you are more worried about the set-top ones rather than some hobbiest with some DVD playback software. The PC-based DVD-Video playback software is usually designed to trust in the file system and does the file requests through normal OS-related file requests rather than doing low-level sector navigation. This is a sign of good programming, not the lack thereof.

    What is being done here is a very cheap hack that took the brains of a half-competent software engineering intern who knows just enough about the specs to get him/herself into some serious trouble and doesn't know the basics of trying to stick with known standards. Or to understand the need for redundant systems to try and protect data through multiple means of accessing the information. As has been pointed out, by doing this the file system is essentially corrupted, so normal OS file system requests will not be able to retrieve the data, unless you are accessing information on the DVD drive via individual sector requests instead (that would be the "hack" to break this "encryption" system). BTW, the "file size" of the IFO files is also recorded in the IFO file format itself as well, so "recreating" the IFO files is trivial in this situation if you can access the individual sectors.

    I certainly hope that this idiot who designed this system didn't get a patent on the subject. I will go down right now as somebody to contact if you want to break the patent to testify that this is not a patentable idea in the first place. And as has been pointed out by others, this is clearly in violation of the DVD-Video standards and as such you can't claim compatability to DVD-Video by using this system. This is not a copy protection scheme but rather a corruption of the file system, as has been pointed out, and taking on a percieved weakness in the organization of the DVD-Video format.

  • European Perspective (Score:5, Informative)

    by RAMMS+EIN (578166) on Wednesday October 11 2006, @03:56PM (#16399625) Homepage Journal
    I live in the Netherlands, but I know the situation is the same in many other EU countries:

    Since the implementation of the EUCD, it is now against the law to bypass "effective technical measures" that restrict what can be done with a copyrighted work, even if these restrictions involves rights you would normally have under copyright law.

    At the same time, downloading copyrighted material off the 'net is explicitly allowed. The copyright holders are paid from a levy that is imposed on blank media.

    As a result of this, for me as a Linux user, it is illegal for me to watch movies from "copy-protected" DVDs that I bought and paid for, but it is legal to watch the same movies if I download them off the 'net for free.

  • Home entertainment systems (Score:5, Interesting)

    by slidersv (972720) on Wednesday October 11 2006, @03:57PM (#16399647) Journal
    I thought a lot of people watched DVD movies on their home entertainment systems - a lot of which are based on PCs (Windows Media Center/Linux). Or what about people with just big monitor?
    So now i cannot watch this new Hollywood-DVD that I'd buy on my home entertainment system?
  • 1.) Stop making DVDs. Distribute the crap by download only.
    2.) Put Adam Sandler in every film.

    "1" is already happening, although Mal-Wart and the rest of the retailers are not happy about it.

    "2" would be a crime against humanity.

  • Misdirection Away From The Real Issue (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Bones3D_mac (324952) on Wednesday October 11 2006, @04:17PM (#16399955)
    The more I see stuff like this, along with the recent issues brick and mortar retailers are having over the pricing difference from online movie distribution, the more I think the movie industry wants the standard DVD format to die. Without having a phyical product being placed in the hands of consumers, and forcing movie downloads to be tied specifically to a single computer/user, it makes the process of transferring the content to third parties (either by illegal file sharing or through legal after-market resale) nearly impossible for the average person.

    Just think, that $14 movie you "conveniently" downloaded from iTunes today won't be nearly as "convenient" to resell to someone else later on, as a physical DVD would be. To resell that one single movie, you'll need to literally hand your entire computer and iTunes account over to the buyer. Otherwise, your only remaining option is to delete the file and eat the loss... and all because you didn't buy a physical copy when you had the chance.

    The industry *wants* you to buy downloaded movies instead of DVDs, despite their seeming lack of support for it. As soon as the "trusted computing initiative" is in full effect, it be game over for the consumer.

    • Re:Oh the joy. (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 11 2006, @03:39PM (#16399285)
      The truth of the matter is, the pirates rule the ports, and if you try to remove ports altogether trade shuts down and the merchants and people are angry - the solution isn't to remove ports, but to create naval armies to fight the pirates away from the merchant vessels (being, DVD's). Or at least that's what my pirated copy of Sid Meier's Pirates taught me. But then when I pirated Pirates of the Carribean I learned instead that if you side with some of the pirates you can get rid of some other pirates. Also I learned that if a pirate falls behind, he's left behind, which explains why I'm still trying to use IRC/Torrents and it seems my fellow pirates moved on to Newgroups/Binaries. All in all though, the pirates have the better ships and are sexier, and you'll never get rid of them - so maybe just accept your losses and stop pissing off your customers so much that they prefer dealing with pirates not just because of the lower prices but because we don't fill their computers with plagued goods in the form of viral DRM softwares and anti-privacy/anti-piracy programs? If I wasn't a pirate, I would deal with them over you, and I am a pirate because you've been pissing me off for years. Soon you won't have customers at all, they'll all be pirates - and there will be panic on the high seas but also much rum drinking and dancing because - yo ho! - a pirate is a friend to a pirate when the only goods in trade are information and can verily be copied and the booty shared by all.

      • Re:Buy a mac? (Score:5, Funny)

        by giorgiofr (887762) on Wednesday October 11 2006, @03:58PM (#16399657)
        Black-clad men entered my house through the windows and shot my Mac and blew my Linux servers with C4 but they did NOT find my NetBSD-enabled toaster! MWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!
          • I (and we) will always have the cooler toys.

            We always would have had the cooler toys. People who are interested in learning about computers, will always be able to do more with them; this doesn't change whether the computer is a drum-memory beast or the latest bazillion-transistor Intel powerhouse.

            What DRM means is that the stuff that we geeks will be doing on our computers, is the stuff that the masses should be able to do ... and the stuff that we geeks ought to be doing in the absence of DRM, we'll never do at all.

            When I think of all the time that really brilliant people like DVD Jon have spent breaking DRM, it doesn't seem like some great technical achievement -- it's just a lot of effort and time that could have gone to actual development of new features, but which had to instead be spent just making something simple work the way it should have.

            DRM is like the ultimate broken-window fallacy. In fixing it you feel like you're accomplishing something, but really you're just treading water.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.