On our losing rights over technology in the name of content protection

thegoldenstrand · May 6, 2007, 01:50 PM

Anyone else think it extremely cunning on the part of the "trusted" computing gang to say they are protecting content owners from "piracy" while they have come with their ships and started firing at us the ordinary common users of technology?

Think about it.. the newest and best video cards will let them board our PC's, yet deny us the same right or power.

Think about it.. Microsoft has worked with almost all tech companies to put things on the hardware side to work with their software side so that those tech companies in bed with M$ can wield absolute end say control over what takes place on our pc some day.

The very ownerhsip of the PC is being switched from the common man to the common criminal corporation..

There be pirates, but they are using "Anti-Piracy", DMCA, DRM, RIAA, AACS, HDCP to steal your PC and who knows what may follow.

The Bad ship Content Protection is not a ship any true lover of freedom should get on board.

Sandok · May 6, 2007, 02:03 PM

... you have way too much free time on your hands

OmegaRED · May 6, 2007, 02:30 PM

I have no clue what you're talking about then I saw the Jesus quote in your sig and somehow that explained why.

Maddogg6 · May 6, 2007, 03:36 PM

Quote:

The Bad ship Content Protection is not a ship any true lover of freedom should get on board.

If you were a hollywood producer - you would have a different look at 'content protections'.

HD content protection is not about M$ control - or 'boarding our PC' - its about legal ramifications if they didn't support those protections.

What video card installs a root kit?

Which brings me to a point I WILL agree is messed up... if it were ME who installed a root kit into all those PCs infected by Sony - Id be in a FEDERAL court/prison - But NO - sony - ...did they even loose their case(s) in CIVIL COURT?. (I dunno, never heard what the outcome was on that). But they (seemed to) quite easily 'passed' the buck to some foreign entity no 'common joe' could access.

**dj_stick** · May 6, 2007, 06:12 PM

"Content Protection" is mis-named. It;s really "Profit Protection"