Whats wrong?
Ron Rivest asked me, I think it would be illuminating to insure your tantrums on the differences between the Intel/IBM content- bulwark proposals and existing practices for content protection in the TV scrambling domain. The devils advocate position against your position would be: if the customer is willing to sully extra, or special, hardware to allow him to view protected content, what is wrong with that?
First, I call it copy protection rather than content protection, because content is such a mindless word. What the technology actually does is to deter copying. Such technologies select a long history in computing, starting with the first microcomputers, minicomputers, and workstations. move out in very small niches, all such systems lastly failed. M some(prenominal) failed because of active opposition from their buyers, who purchased alternative products that did not cut back copying.
There is nothing wrong with allowing population to optionally choose to buy copy-protection products that they like. What is wrong is when:
Competing products are driven off the market
What is wrong is when people who would like products that simply record bits, or audio, or video, without any copy protection, cant find any, because they have been driven off the market. By restrictive laws like the Audio Home Recording Act, which killed the digital audiotape market.
By anti-circumvention laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which slam is now litigating. By Federal agency actions, like the FCC decision making a month ago that it will be black-market to offer citizens the capability to record HDTV programs, even if the citizens have the legal right to. By private agreements among major companies, such as SDMI and CPRM (that later end up being submitted as fait accompli to accredited standards committees, requiring an effort by the affected public to parachute them). By private agreements behind the...
If you want to get a full essay, wisit our page: write my essay .
No comments:
Post a Comment