RIAA vs Linux and DVDs 415
PlayfullyClever writes "The entertainment industry has put itself on the fast-track to destruction, using well-proven tactics as explained in Preventing DVD Playback on Linux Like Prohibition in the 1920's. Are their heavy-handed tactics to lock up and control everything we touch signs of plain old human stubborness?" Or more likely- greed.
Who's doing what to whom when how? (Score:5, Insightful)
There's no mention of RIAA/music/movie in the article, and hardly any mention of Linux.
So what's happening now? Is it some kind of bullets, leathers and baked beans? Someone please enlighten me.
Re:Who's doing what to whom when how? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Learn to preview.. . (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Learn to preview.. . (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Learn to preview.. . (Score:3, Funny)
Buzzword articles (Score:2)
So you simply substitute organizations, destroys any logical point TOP had, but will cause a lively enough reaction among hte slashdot faithful for a good 20-30 minutes of rabid posting.
Read between the lines (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Who's doing what to whom when how? (Score:5, Funny)
Unfortunately, it's kinda tricky:
Step One: Don't invent the DVD yet.
Step...
D'oh!
Re:Who's doing what to whom when how? (Score:5, Funny)
I do know that the open-source liquor industry has gone way downhill since Prohibition was lifted.
Open Source Beer (Score:4, Informative)
I think you're wrong about that, and I'll prove it with my Open Source Beer:
Mash grain at 150 degrees in 80 oz. water for 20 minutes. Sparge with 80 oz. water at 170 degrees. Add extract, 1 1/2 oz. Nugget, 2 tsp. gypsum. Add water to about 3 gallons. Bring to a boil. Boil for 15 min., add 1/2 oz Nugget. Boil for 30 minutes, add 1/2 oz Perle. Boil for 15 minutes (total 1 hour boil).
Cool to 75 degrees, then pitch yeast.
Ferment for about 1 week, rack to secondary, add 1 1/2 oz. cascade.
Allow secondary to ferment for about 1 week. Rack to priming bucket, adding about 5 oz. priming sugar (preferred) or dry malt extract. Bottle. Allow about 30 days before refrigeration.
THIS RECIPE LICENSED UNDER THE GPL.
There you go!
Re:Open Source Beer (Score:5, Funny)
THIS RECIPE LICENSED UNDER THE GPL.
Great. Now I won't be able to drink it while using MS Word.
I'll yell you who... (Score:5, Informative)
Why else would TFA have nothing to do with the submission?
Bealtes-Beatles in disguise, with diamonds?
FYI
Domain Name: PLAYFULLYCLEVER.COM
Registrar: TUCOWS INC.
Updated Date: 30-nov-2005
Creation Date: 30-nov-2005
Expiration Date: 30-nov-2006
Re:RIAA sanctioned linux playback (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you have 2 issues confused here. In Linux, you do NOT have to rip the dvd to watch it. However, before the DVD encryption scheme was cracked...you could not use your computer's dvd player to watch your perfectly legally purchased dvds. DVD Jon broke the encryption scheme...and now, dvd players on Linux boxes can do the exact same thing that someone using OSX or Win. can do with their purchased media.
The ease in ripping the dvd's was just a side effect from having the encryption broken. But, you can rip a DVD on any OS...not just Linux.
DVD encryption is about old bandwidth assumptions (Score:4, Insightful)
You can rip DVD's without breaking the encryption; the only thing ripping them does is rduce the overall payload size.
It's perfectly functional to image copy a DVD to another DVD (which is what the pirates do, when they are not simply shutting down the legal assembly line production at 6 PM, and running off another 20,000 copies between 8 PM and 12 AM from the legal masters).
It's also perfectly functional to make something that looks to the system like a DVD drive driver, but actually operates from a disk image instead of real DVD hardware, so you can take the image copies of a DVD and feed them into your completely legal commercial DVD player software.
The *ONLY* thing that DVD encryption does is:
(1) make it hard to decide which bits you need to move from machine A to machine B so you can watch the whole movie, and
(2) defeats compression of the cleartext DVD contents (which is minimal, since it's already a compressed format), and
(3) prevents transcoding to an alternate lossy format to reduce the transfer size (which is *supposedly* something the MPAA et. al. don't care about anyway, as they are apparently not concerned with digital-analog-digital copying, which the DVD encryption can't prevent in the first place)
In other words, it's about keeping the bandwidth required to move DVD content from point A to point B as high as possible to adjust the economics of digital copying to artifically inflate the costs relative to the benefits.
And guess what? These bandwidth assumptions are no longer valid.
If you are willing to take the approach of the pseudo-DVD device driver, you don't need DeCSS, and that converts everything from a DMCA violation to a simple copyright violation.
-- Terry
Re:Protected DVDs have keys (Score:3, Interesting)
If normal DVD readers don't access those areas of the DVD, how is a software player like PowerDVD or WinDVD determining the key to decrypt the vid
Re:RIAA sanctioned linux playback (Score:4, Informative)
But the ability to view implies the ability to rip. What, in the end, is viewing, if not ripping to video memory rather than to the hard disk?
Effectively what we're doing is something like
$ cat /dev/dvd | decss | videoplayer | /dev/videocard
That's a legitimate use for decss, right? Viewing. But what if instead we
$ cat /dev/dvd | decss | transcode > piratecopy.mpg
As the earlier post said: we need decss in order to view these DVDs. However, by its very nature that also allows us to rip. The same is true of commercial, closed source, Windows DVD players, it's just that there it's rather more difficult to obtain the decrypted video data and direct them to the hard disk rather than to the video card.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:RIAA sanctioned linux playback (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah, well, that's not good enough. Chances are any "legal alternative" they come up with would be your standard bloated skinned media player that doesn't follow any UI standards and eats up a ton of resources. Probably binary-only and would only run under certain conditions (i.e. exactly the right library versions & machine architecture).
I use mplayer because:
A) It doesn't have a GUI (I disable it during the compile), and doesn't require a mouse. It has consistent keyboard shortcuts that do everything I need. The keyboard shortcuts work over stdin, so I can launch it from a remote ssh session and have full capabilities.
B) It can be easily remote controlled from either another computer or any other device I set up.
C) It's small and fast
D) It runs on my preferred platform (FreeBSD)
E) By default it just plays the main DVD title and not any annoying menus / trailers / FBI warnings. It ignores the DVD's desire to disable my navigation functions. I highly doubt anything DVD-CCA approved would have this capability.
As far as I'm concerned, I acquired a legal right to use the content however I wish when I purchased the media. If the law disagrees, the law is wrong and needs to be changed. Until then, the media companies can suck it.
Re:RIAA sanctioned linux playback (Score:3, Insightful)
b) Equal abilities to other operating systems is important, really. It's not that DVD playback on PCs is important as such. But if you try to tell a Windows user "Play a DVD? Sorry, Linux can't do that." then that's a turn-off.
c) Actually, giving away "carbon copies" was fairly much accepted for private non-commercial purposes as long as media degenerated, such as with tapes (or carbon copies!) because it was natura
Re:RIAA sanctioned linux playback (Score:4, Insightful)
Where did you get that from? I agree that the right to play DVDs on linux is a distraction, designed to make it easier to explain the argument to slow friends, politicians, and the general public.
But the actual issue it's concealing is the ability to play standard media formats [DVDs] on Free Software.
That's why a "WinWord-viewer"-style DVD player for linux wouldn't be accepted -- nothing to do with everyone being thieves or whatever you were trying to imply, but simply that Free Software is trustworthy and the DVD industry isn't.
In fact, mass media in general is just a side-issue - the important thing is that the owner of a computer should be able to control what it does. That's why people are so outraged at DVD drives that prevent fast-forwarding, or play unskippable adverts, or only allow you to change regions 5 times, or dial-up to the internet to download a license (and a list of new restrictions that your computer will impose on you)
Sorry to quote RMS again, but "trecharous computing" really is the phrase for this stuff.
And too many people are fooled by the "if you don't run Windows Media Player with DRM then you must be a copyright-infringer" argument that's so easy to trot-out when someone demands that they be in control of their own computers.
This article.... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:This article.... (Score:3, Funny)
http://bunnyherolabs.com/dhtml/monster.php?ref=ht
I can't find the old pornalizer proxy, but that is probably your best bet.
speak for yourself kiddo (Score:3, Funny)
Re:This article.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Fear more than greed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fear more than greed (Score:5, Insightful)
Somebody needs to make a video of Sony DRM pirates sailing the intenet sea with Monty Python's tune of the Crimson Permanent Insurance sung in the background...
Re:Fear more than greed (Score:5, Informative)
Likewise, there are a lot of folks on the other side of the fence, who can't get over the idea that purchasing a CD does not give them the right to distribute copies of that CD to a million of their closest friends.
This is why they call people "pirates" when they do what they want with their own stuff.
Pop quiz: Who went to the Supreme Court to defend the idea that a manufacturer of a device that can be used for piracy is not liable for the actions of end users who abuse it for such activity, so long as the device has "substantial non-infringing uses"? Answer: Sony, a member of both the RIAA and MPAA. Who, in the same case, helped establish the precedent that time-shifting is legal under the "fair use" provision of US copyright law? Again, Sony did.
The *AA's have not, to the best of my knowledge, taken any sort of action against someone who was simply time- or media-shifting "their own stuff." In fact, as shown above, at least one member of these cartels has gone to a lot of trouble to defend your right to do just that.
They have, on the other hand, filed many lawsuits where the target of the lawsuit was allegedly distributing copies of "stuff" without having obtained a legal license to do so. That's an entirely different kettle of fish.
I dislike the media monopoly as much as anyone - in fact, I'd read and been alarmed by Bagdikian's "Media Monopoly" book before most of the people here had even heard of the RIAA or MPAA. But let's be realistic - straw-man arguments and paranoid, ill-informed rantings are not helpful to the cause.
Sony was not into content yet. (Score:3, Interesting)
Time and media shifting is becoming an issue because its becoming possible.
What the **AAs don't want is to give us ownership of the 1,440 minutes a day.
They fuck over the content originators, those artists who make the content, they make their money by screwing them with impossible contracts (its like an offer that the artist dare not refuse,) production costs and distribution costs which the artist has to pay for. They are the last '
Re:Fear more than greed (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not about preventing piracy. It never has been. Every study shows that piracy doesn't cut into the amount of money they make. Those that pirate weren't likely buyers to begin with and some end up becoming buyers because they like what they downloaded and want it in a better form. What this is about is maintaining their hold on the distribution chain. The record labels are the middle men between the consumer and the artists. As technology continues to enable and simplify a direct connection between artists and consumers, the labels become less and less necessary.
By holding these technologies back, what they are really doing is preserving the situation where artists are forced to go through them to be able to reach consumers. They're preserving the situation where they can force onerous contracts on artists that give that result in the labels receiving the vast majority of the profits from music sales. They're preserving the cartel arrangement that allows charging ~$15 for a plastic disc that costs < $0.50 to create. Home studios are already well within the capabilities of many artists and CD manufacturing can be purchased at very reasonable prices. These were once functions that only record labels could offer. Now the only thing they have left is the distribution network. Filesharing and other technologies that allow artists to market directly to their fans will eventually obviate the last function that labels provide and make them completely unncessary.
That's what they're fighting. That's the power they're trying to maintain.
Re:Fear more than greed (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Fear more than greed (Score:2)
Reminds me of this oh-so-good book and movie, Fight Club:
The things you own end up owning you.
- Tyler Durden
That got me thinking: "How about making things that own other people?"
I guess it ends up in the same situation... People you own due to the things you make end up owning you.
Re:Fear more than greed (Score:4, Funny)
- Tyler Durden
I'd like to be owned by a big mansion, a yact, and a Lotus Esprit Turbo, please. Where do I post my "for sale" sign?
Re:Fear more than greed (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Fear more than greed (Score:3, Funny)
(at least he got "Esprit" right...)
FUD (Score:2)
-M
What he say? (Score:5, Funny)
(Someone had to say it.)
Re:What he say? (Score:3, Funny)
For great justice?
Re:What he say? (Score:3, Funny)
All your baNO CARRIER
Good analogy (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Good analogy (Score:4, Informative)
It's still probably the greatest source of wealth creation on internet, and definitely is the greatest source of traffic.
Re:Good analogy (Score:2)
but in what sense does emule/edonkey create wealth? it moves bits around.
i'm sure its very nice.
Not RIAA / Linux / DVD (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not RIAA / Linux / DVD (Score:2)
Should read
"Some private individuals want the people who produce all that shiny stuff to work for them for free."
"Private individuals" that actually create and produce things for a living don't want free access. They probably want more flexible access to what they've purchased, and probably want their customers/audience to have some variation on the same. But they don't want it for free, because they also wish to make a living, and actually get th
Re:Not RIAA / Linux / DVD (Score:5, Insightful)
Submitter didn't RTFA (Score:2, Informative)
One major flaw in the analogy... (Score:5, Insightful)
Starting with a flawed analogy usually leads to a flawed article --as it did in this case.
Re:One major flaw in the analogy... (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe the Hemp vs Cotton Growers would be a better analogy...
IIRC - Hemp is a better fibre than cotton - at least FAR easier to grow, seeing as it grows like a weed (*cough* whoops, no pun intended). Which is why the cotton farmers "back then" didn't like it.
Re:One major flaw in the analogy... (Score:3, Informative)
Hemp is _not_ a better fiber than cotton for most purposes, which is why back before it was banned in 1930 there were only about 1300 acres of land cultivated for hemp in the US and only a couple thousand tons total consumption (including imports), almost all of it used for rope. (And no, Dow didn't squash hemp use to promote its new nylon; nylon at that time was used almost exclusively in pantyhose, whic
Re:One major flaw in the analogy... (Score:3)
On pesticides co
Re:One major flaw in the analogy... (Score:2)
Unless we really are living in the Matrix, it's doubtful there is an unflawed analogy that could be used in this context.
Re:One major flaw in the analogy... (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm curious what absolute value advantage is attempting to be enforced by the DMCA. Prohibition was an attempt to legislate morality, to remove a cause of crime, and failed to do so. I suppose I can see a similar case in the DMCA, but copyright is not morality, it is purely a legal right granted to content creators. Additionally, how does the DMCA prohibit mutually beneficial exchanges? It prevents you from breaking encryption in order to get at the underlying data in it's raw format. However, those people willing to pay and be approved for licensing of the decryption methods make the products that allow us to use this content. The only thing you are, in theory, denied is the raw data that is used to compile the movie. You are not denied access to view the movie, given an appropriate device to decode and display it, nor are you denied from purchasing the encrypted disk.
The latter quote makes me laugh, though. How many murder cases would it take for judges to see that laws against murder are unfair? The law generally dictates the range of penalties allowed to the courts to decide, and few courts seem willing to judge the validity or constitutionality of laws when dealing with a case. However, I doubt very seriously that the simple number of cases will really influence the penalties handed out.
There is a lot of talk in this article, and a lot of references to Prohibition as a mirror for the current situation. My view on copyright withstanding, this article makes a very poor case of proving why these kinds of laws are doomed to fail.
Wrong **AA? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Wrong **AA? (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wrong **AA? (Score:3, Funny)
And what's wrong with the word "rediculous"? Balki used it all the time.
... greed. (Score:2)
RIAA (Score:3, Insightful)
Sounds like it would be more the MPAA to me, but I agree with the first post, there isn't much of a mention of any assosication targeting Linux as an opponent needing to be overcome.
I think the only thing that stands in the way of watching DVDs on Linux is the obvious difference in opinions on how Intelectual Property rights should be handled, which was briefly touched upon in the article.
If only end-users didn't copy so many DVDs, Movie studios wouldn't feel the need to encrypt their movies. Of course, I also feel that by purchasing the DVD, I should also be purchasing the rights to view the DVD, which would include decoders for whatever operating system I use, but that's from an end-user standpoint, not a developer/legal standpoint.
At the very least, DVDs should list system requirements if they are going to require more than just the hardware that reads data from the DVD in order to play them.
Re:RIAA (Score:2)
If only end-users didn't copy so many DVDs, Movie studios wouldn't feel the need to encrypt their movies.
I really hope you are joking. How does encrypting a DVD stop it from being copied? You can make perfect duplicates of encrypted DVDs just fine without touching the encryption. It does exactly nothing to stop the copying and pirating of DVDs as is evidenced in countries around the world.
The encryption is designed to stop two things. First it is designed to stop DVDs from being played in different r
slashdot user on fast track to hyperbole (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, please. Even the people who don't think they should have to pay for their expensively produced entertainment will have to realize that actual destruction of the entertainment industry will leave them without anyone really professional to rip off. I mean, you don't have to sleep with a copy of Atlas Shrugged to see the basic truth of it. The rubber has to meet the road someplace, and at some point the Peter Jacksons of the world will not be able to raise the cash for a Really Swell Giant Ape Movie.
And before someone says that artistic patronage, bar gigs, miming in the streets and wearing sandals was good enough 2500 years ago, and real artists shouldn't care about financing actors and makeup artists, blahditty blah... oh, never mind. There, I've said it for you. It's not about whether or not there should be a rational way to play your DVD on your Linux laptop. There should be. The problem is the shrill tone (and glee) in comments like the original post. That does not help matters.
Re:slashdot user on fast track to hyperbole (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:slashdot user on fast track to hyperbole (Score:4, Insightful)
Remember that the original purpose of movie studios and music companies was to provide funding to purchase equipment to artists, and channels to distribute music. If we don't need those services, these guys are out of business. With music that has already happened. You can distribute music online very cheaply, and a low-end masternig grade soundcard is $500.
Re:slashdot user on fast track to hyperbole (Score:3, Insightful)
To an
Re:slashdot user on fast track to hyperbole (Score:2)
YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE TO PAY A LICENSING FEE TO CREATE A PLAYER THAT CAN PLAY THE MEDIA
Products I pay for shouldn't be my only legal option. Some developer wants to spend his time to give an open source DVD player to the community, he should be able to legally break the freaking encryption and do it. That's not breaking copyright, so why
I'll drink to that (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/DeCSS/Gallery/archive/
Some other page I found by accident about file sharing:
http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/howto-notgetsued.php [eff.org]
Nope. (Score:4, Insightful)
Not a chance. They fought (and survived) through player pianos, sheet music, record players, radio stations, juke boxes and casette tapes. They'll still be around, greedily fighting the direct-neural-interface players 100 years hence.
New DVDs that block use in computers (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:New DVDs that block use in computers (Score:2)
if the latter than you had a legally licensed dvd player, and if
the dvd refused to play then it wasn't really a dvd was it?
(just like copy protected cd's are not really cds).
BTW, many of the new portable dvd players are built with computer
parts so such a dvd might not play on any of them either.
Hope the studios are ready for angry hordes returning defective
DVD's.
Re:New DVDs that block use in computers (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:New DVDs that block use in computers (Score:2)
However, what are the chances that the 17 year old behind the counter did anything with the information you gave him besides cancelling your account?
Re:New DVDs that block use in computers (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:New DVDs that block use in computers (Score:2)
I would have to think it was the other way around. You computer blocked your ability to play this DVD.
The DVD hasn't got any idea what it is being played on. It doesn't change its bits when it's inserted into a computer DVD drive instead of a living room player. More likely the DVD contains some form of region coding that says don't play me on computers, and your computer player obliged it by refusing. I'd be angry at my co
Re:New DVDs that block use in computers (Score:2, Informative)
Hmm...what was this about? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hmm...what was this about? (Score:2)
Re:Hmm...what was this about? (Score:2)
In the US, prohibition lasted from 1920 to 1933 in the United States.
Perhaps this should've been filed under department-of-redundencies-dept.
Trusted Computing could actually FIX this problem (Score:2, Interesting)
Using trusted computing (stay with me for a moment) you could write a very very tiny little program (probably kernel module) that would be distributed as a signed binary, but also available as source (recompiling it wouldn't help, but y
It was said well enough long ago (Score:5, Funny)
I just wish they'd hurry up and die from their mistakes so something better can come along.
Not the RIAA and MPAA, illegal tying is the issue (Score:2, Insightful)
Either I own my copy of a work, or I don't. If I own it (and not just a license of it), then I have the right to do anything I want to with it, other than selling or giving a copy to someone else (because only the copyright owner has the right to distribute copies).
But if I don't legally have the right to decrypt the information on the disk (because of the DMCA), then it doesn't matter what my ownership rights are, the "keeper of the decryption" owns my ability to do what I want with my copy, a
DMCA vs. Prohabition passage (Score:5, Interesting)
It is misleading to say "our brilliant government" passed Prohabition. It would be more accurate to say "our brilliant GOVERNMENTS" passed Prohibition, as it required a 2/3rds majority of votes in both the House and Senate, as well as being ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states. Grave mistake though it was, Prohabition was still an issue whose passage was sufficiently popular to overcome the step hurdles against amending the constitution.
The DMCA, by contrast, has shown no such popular support, and did not go through nearly as rigerous a process or well-debated to be enacted into law. That's a rather fundamental difference, and one that renders his anaology to inexact to be meaningful, if not his overriding point.
Crow T. Trollbot
Vocal Support does not equal Popular (Score:3, Informative)
Put down the moonshine and re-study your history. The Prohibition movement was far from a majority; they were an extremely vocal minority, sufficiently large and well organized to be able to swing elections, and motivated by a religious belief that the ends justified the means, pushed a large variety of bad science about the degree of harm of alc
More like weed prohibition in the 1930's... (Score:3, Insightful)
movies are not the only media (Score:2, Interesting)
dude, it's the *corporations* (Score:4, Funny)
Playfully Clever flubbed the story link (Score:2, Interesting)
The RIAA - Hollywood - DRM - Linux Suicide Pact [lxer.com]
"The entertainment industry has put itself on the fast-track to destruction, using well-proven tactics as explained in Preventing DVD Playback on Linux Like Prohibition in the 1920's. Are their heavy-handed tactics to lock up and control everything we touch signs of plain old human stubborness? Stupidity? Insanity? A bit of each? How else do you explain their inexplicable actions?"
Or it's just a coincidence.
RIAA? (Score:2)
Meh, big deal.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Probably some truth in this, but... (Score:3, Interesting)
As for this article, it's interesting, but quite a bit "scattered" on different thoughts, covering a whole lot of ground on a mere two pages of text. But sure, MS is clearly facing new needs of adapting themselves to the industry they may not have faced since they started sketching on their business model. It remains to be seen if they'll be able to adapt to the new market, but at least according to their recently leaked internal memos, they realize the need of relying less on their traditional style of software development, marketing and pushing. It remains to be seen if they can put this insight into successful actions though. Part of the plans seemed to involve basing more revenues on online ads and becoming a Google, but unfortunately for them, well, there's this not too unsuccessful Google already there.
So I think there'll be some interesting times ahead, even moreso if the Linux community will one day manage to provide a distribution taking a leap in functionality, user friendliness and style, like for example OS X did in the days.
Don't bother to RTFA (Score:3, Informative)
Wow. (Score:3, Funny)
Vote with your Dollars! (Score:3)
Sometimes my kids want a CD. I won't control their choices, but they have to listen to a lecture from me about the evil they would support: RIAA harassing customers, exploiting artists, milking their back catalog and not spending nearly enough money finding/deveoping talent.
The MPAA hasn't [yet][ gotten so bad, so I still spend north of $1000/yr on DVDs.
Re:let's see (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I call BS (Score:2)
--jeff++
Re:I call BS (Score:2)
(GPL'ed) player. So how can it be legal? If they are using DeCSS then
it is NOT legal, if they use a closed source licensed decoder then
they are in violation of the GPL and can't distribute the program.
Also they must distrute the source for the program on demand.
Re:I call BS (Score:2)
Re:I call BS (Score:2)
the DVD FAQ says there are legal Linux players (Score:2, Informative)
[quote]
Some computer users say they only want to use DeCSS to view their DVDs on computers that use the Linux operating system. Windows- and Macintosh-based computers can play DVDs, so is it fair to deprive the Linux community?
The Linux argument is a false issue. It has always been in the interest of the Motion Picture industry that there be as many legitimately licensed DVD players as possible, including those using non-Windows operating systems. However the argument that DeCSS was writ
Re:the DVD FAQ says there are legal Linux players (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I call BS (Score:2)
The problem, of course, is not that they want to stop playback on Linux, it's that DVDs use a "secret" format to hide their data. Whet
Re:Um...duh? (Score:2)
The RIAA doesn't actually have anything to do with the linked article. Honestly, the slashdot articles are starting to sound like the paranoid rantings of Charles Manson:
We have to find ourselves first, God second, and kind, k-i-n-d, come next. And that is all I was doing. I was working on cleaning up my house, something Nixon should have been doing. He should have been on the side of the road picking up his children. But he wa
Re:Slashdot fails at Titles (Score:2)
TFA in fact has little to do with linux and even less to do with the RIAA. It contains many mentions of Microsoft and the BSA. It mentions linux once and hollywood once.
But not so much so when you said this:
However, the article IS very interesting. It makes some interesting comparisons between the effectiveness of the DMCA and prohibition.
There aren't really any comparisons in there.