 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Math Forum / Mathematics / Undergraduate Math / October 2008JSH: So why no legal DVD copying?
A remarkable seeming tangent to my story is the reality that over a year ago as I contemplated ways to break the impasse over my mathematical research I came up with a solution to the problem of legally copying DVD's which I called DMESE, which stands for Digital Media Equipment Self-Encryption. Not having a lot of routes to talk about my ideas, I put it on some of my blogs, and yup, posted about it on newsgroups, where in response I got the usual insults, tirades, and chants that I was insane, along with people claiming it was a bogus idea, but RealNetworks just tried to put out a product which is quite similar: http://www.redherring.com/blogs/25121 The similarity is in that key to my idea and part of their approach is the encryption of the copy--preventing the user from just handing it off to others. That's the "self-encryption" part of the DMESE title I created. Well they were promptly sued!!! http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ed17ea46-8f51-11dd-946c-0000779fd18c.html Seems the media giants don't want DVD copying software and the reason I read was that they are afraid people will just rent DVD's and copy them versus buy them, except I solved that problem months ago: http://lostincomment.blogspot.com/2007/07/completing-dmese.html The simple idea I had was the asking for the original DVD after 30 days to be checked by the machine which then assumes you own the thing (or are a really desperate person with lots of time on your hands to try and cheat). What makes this story almost beyond belief is the reality that millions of United States consumers CANNOT legally copy their DVD's!!!!!!!!! The supposedly almighty American consumer, ham-strung!!! (But of course we Americans are no longer considered so mighty these days anyway, I guess.) I also love this story for showing you how bogus people are who rip on me and my ideas for supposedly being crappy or not working, and for the conspiracy nuts, sorry. I find it hard to believe that the mathematical community has teamed up with Hollywood to block people around the world from being able to legally copy their DVD's just to prevent interest in my research. Fun thing about a post like this one are the replies I expect from the losers among you who rant against people like me who will claim that I'm all wrong, and that it's not a big deal and you not being able to legally copy your DVD in the United States means NOTHING because you see, they know all, I'm supposedly just a "loon" wanting attention, and there's nothing more to be said, so you just give up and keep illegally copying your DVD or don't copy at all. You nice little sheep, or, um, people who act like sheep. Or should I say think like sheep? And hey, deep down, you know you like being inconvenienced by people like "Uncle Al" and the other crackpot haters you dote on, to keep those people happy, right? It's a stupid world, really. Beyond the hype. I assure you. It's a stupid world. James Harris [snip] all those words, and not even one implementation of decss much less an implementation that beats the one line of perl > A remarkable seeming tangent to my story is the reality that over a > year ago as I contemplated ways to break the impasse over my [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > with people claiming it was a bogus idea, but RealNetworks just tried > to put out a product which is quite similar: Well, you are near insane, Since the Video copying scams the Hollwooders run is why the people who understand the legalese mumbo jumbo on Campus' even invented the Elibraries, RISC++, Optical Computers, On-Line-Publishing,, CD+rw, DVD-stack, HDTV[], XML, USB, Post McDonald's Holograms, Post Ford Batteries, Post- crank AT&T Fiber Optics, XML, USB, All-In-One Printers, and Laser-guided lasers, > http://www.redherring.com/blogs/25121 > [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > > James Harris <snip> > that I was insane, Just between you and me, are you ? <snip> >my ideas for supposedly being crappy or not working, Is it all your ideas or just a few? >....... I'm all wrong,....... >........ I'm supposedly just a "loon" wanting attention,...... >..... I say think like sheep(?) >......"Uncle Al" and the other crackpot haters...... ....do they hate you ? > It's a stupid world, really. Beyond the hype. I assure you. It's a > stupid world. if it is stupid, why do we have the internet ? > James Harris > http://lostincomment.blogspot.com/2007/07/completing-dmese.html > > The simple idea I had was the asking for the original DVD after 30 > days to be checked by the machine which then assumes you own the thing > (or are a really desperate person with lots of time on your hands to > try and cheat). The purpose of legal copies is to create a backup in case you lose or damage the original. So, er, I'm not sure your proposal works. > The similarity is in that key to my idea and part of their approach is > the encryption of the copy--preventing the user from just handing it > off to others. Merely encrypting a copy is nothing new. Various products have been doing this for some time. > The simple idea I had was the asking for the original DVD after 30 > days to be checked by the machine which then assumes you own the thing > (or are a really desperate person with lots of time on your hands to > try and cheat). Which defeats the purpose of why I'm copying my CDs onto the computer. I'm not the most well-organized person, so I tend to list discs; if I copy them onto my computer, I don't need to keep all of my discs at the side of my computer. > What makes this story almost beyond belief is the reality that > millions of United States consumers CANNOT legally copy their > DVD's!!!!!!!!! dd if=/dev/cdrom of=dvd.iso For bonus points: mount -t iso9660 -o loop dvd.iso /media/pseudocddrive I disagree. [snip] > > What makes this story almost beyond belief is the reality that > > millions of United States consumers CANNOT legally copy their [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > For bonus points: > mount -t iso9660 -o loop dvd.iso /media/pseudocddrive James is allergic to Unix. -- "The Microsoft company needs to just die and end the scourge of its existence upon the world. Money is not everything Mr. Gates, as you are quite rich now and I think you're a turd, so how do you like them apples?" -- James Harris > > The similarity is in that key to my idea and part of their approach is > > the encryption of the copy--preventing the user from just handing it [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > copy them onto my computer, I don't need to keep all of my discs at the > side of my computer. That is the solution that destroys the argument by the Hollywood media moguls that people would just copy DVD's that they rented, say, from Blockbuster. Besides, any idiot can keep a DVD for 30 days. Which goes to the reality that people like you would rather make stupid arguments versus acknowledging a rather simple idea when I would not be surprised if you illegally copy your DVD's, or if you don't you know how to. It's the regular people who are screwed or incited to illegal activity, trusting software people they don't know and really can't trust who will provide them with the software to do the illegal activity while Hollywood SUES anyone else who tries to make it legal. Any idiot can manage to keep a DVD for 30 freaking days. The main point is there is a simple answer that shuts down Hollywood's argument against legal DVD copying. Google: legal DVD copying But will it be accepted? I think not. It is a stupid world. It is a stupid world. Why do you think we have idiot problems with so much science and technology? Because it is a stupid world run by unimaginably STUPID people. AND I want you to contemplate that every time you watch a DVD and understand what I know. Every time you see a news story about MPAA suing people, or talk about how there is no answer to legal copying that can't be broken I want you to understand: you live in a stupid world. And then know why I laugh. I laugh at "media moguls" who naive people think are brilliant when I know they are fools. But they are rich, powerful fools. Being rich does not make you smart. Being a top executive at a major company does not mean you are not an idiot. These people are idiots. They didn't have to earn the money. They just have to know how to keep it, out of your hide. James Harris > > > The similarity is in that key to my idea and part of their approach is > > > the encryption of the copy--preventing the user from just handing it [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > > James Harris What's the point of making a legal backup if it doesn't work if you lose or damage the original? > > > > The similarity is in that key to my idea and part of their approach is > > > > the encryption of the copy--preventing the user from just handing it [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > What's the point of making a legal backup if it doesn't work if you > lose or damage the original? It WILL work, even if you lose the original, after the 30 day period. So asking for the original after 30 days is a one time thing. Besides, the point is to store the original and use the copy, so if the copy gets lost or damaged you can just make another copy from the original or use the original. One objection to this idea would be people who would play with their PC clocks to try and fool the software, but there are ways to detect that, so there is no rational objection left. It's a simple way to invalidate the objections of the MPAA, and allow RealNetworks to move forward with selling the DVD copying software, allowing end users to make legal copies of their purchased DVD's, with an end to court cases and endless suing of people by the MPAA. The same approach can be used with CD's dramatically reducing losses in that industry from illegal copying. This approach can be used with ANY digital media allowing legal copies with limited interference to the end user, which is why I call it Digital Media Equipment Self-Encryption as it can be used with any digital media. And I put it out over a year and a half ago on one of my blogs, completing the idea with the 30 day idea over a year and three months ago. Some of you clearly labor under the misconception that I get a lot of resistance from people because I'm wrong. The real answer is I get a lot of resistance from people because I'm right. James Harris >> What's the point of making a legal backup if it doesn't work if you >> lose or damage the original? > > It WILL work, even if you lose the original, after the 30 day period. > So asking for the original after 30 days is a one time thing. So if I made a copy on my computer, waited 30 days, gave it the original, I wouldn't need the original anymore? In that case, I can just give that to my friend... > Besides, the point is to store the original and use the copy, so if > the copy gets lost or damaged you can just make another copy from the > original or use the original. Based on this and the previous paragraph, if I were a media mogul afraid of piracy, I'd have rated your idea -10 SHOULD BE CONSIGNED TO THE DEEPEST LEVEL OF HELL. As far as I can tell, you've given the user a blank check to commit piracy. > The real answer is I get a lot of resistance from people because I'm > right. The real answer is that the only form of DRM that would work would be to forbid you from ever accessing your content. I can always copy an audio file by hooking my speaker to my microphone, and I can always copy a video file with a camcorder (and fine control over the refresh rate). I need not even go that far in today's world, as there are software utilities that can peek into both audio and video before it leaves the microprocessor. > >> What's the point of making a legal backup if it doesn't work if you > >> lose or damage the original? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > original, I wouldn't need the original anymore? In that case, I can just > give that to my friend... Yup. Full DMESE also includes using a flash drive to pass the encryption key. So yes, you could make a copy, and give your friend the original after 30 days and just use your copy. If you ever lost it or damaged it, you could ask your friend for the original DVD back, and make another copy and do the entire process over again. > > Besides, the point is to store the original and use the copy, so if > > the copy gets lost or damaged you can just make another copy from the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > DEEPEST LEVEL OF HELL. As far as I can tell, you've given the user a > blank check to commit piracy. If you want to be the copy machine for your friends, buying DVD's just to give them the original and keep the copies to deliberately break the law then you're in a minority. Most people do not wish to illegally copy, but do so because there is no legal way to copy and it's accepted, like breaking speeding laws. DMESE makes it just a little bit harder to be illegal so that you have to DELIBERATELY break the law and know that you are doing so, when you don't have to break it. That bar stops most law abiding citizens, though if you are one of the others, no, it won't stop you I admit. > > The real answer is I get a lot of resistance from people because I'm > > right. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > utilities that can peek into both audio and video before it leaves the > microprocessor. But MOST people will not. With phonograph records you could find ways to copy them as well but I don't think there wasn't this problem like we have today (if there was someone please reply with the info). DMESE makes it harder to illegally copy without making it a pain for the consumer with a legitimate purchase and a need to make backup copies. Criminals will, yes, always find a way, but I suggest to you that most citizens are not criminals and will abide by the law, appreciate the ability to make backups, and piracy will return to the levels seen in the past with phonograph records (if that wasn't bad, I think it wasn't). So the media moguls would save millions of dollars and be able to quit suing grandma's and kids. For academics who don't understand my other point: academic arguments against workable ideas prove that academics have lost their way and our system no longer works. You're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem now in blocking ideas. You're part of the reason neither you, nor I can legally copy our bought DVD's because what you do is no longer a social good. You make academic arguments versus finding answers that help people and society. You are becoming a bane on society, not a useful force for good. James Harris > So if I made a copy on my computer, waited 30 days, gave it the > original, I wouldn't need the original anymore? In that case, I can just > give that to my friend... That would work for discs where you keep the original for 30 days. However, isn't one of the major arguments the studios make for copy protection that they don't want people who rent discs to make and keep copies? Copies that need to validate against the original once at 30 days would address that problem somewhat. At the least, it would inconvenience the copier, as he'd have to rent the disc, copy it, and then 30 days later rent it again to stabilize your copy. Those using Netflix would have to lock up a slot in their plan for a month.  Signature--Tim Smith > The real answer is I get a lot of resistance from people because I'm right. > > James Harris I think this statement is definitely and totally wrong! ~A In article <3d65b6fe-da86-4700-8908-54d61fa0edc9@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>, > What's the point of making a legal backup if it doesn't work if you > lose or damage the original? (The following is not a comment on whether or not JSH's scheme is correct or feasible). You wouldn't use the backup as a backup. You'd use the backup as your active copy, and keep the original as a backup. E.g., you buy a DVD for your kids. You make a 'backup', and give that to the kids. You put the original in a safe place. If (when) the kids destroy their copy, you take the original out of the safe place, and make a new copy for the kids. If, by some miracle, the kids go 30 days without destroying their copy, you take the original out of the safe place, and re-authorize the kid's copy for another 30 days. Because the original only comes out when you need to make a new copy for the kids, or every 30 days (whichever comes from first), and is only used by you and then put away, you should be able to keep the original undamaged. Signature--Tim Smith > In article > <3d65b6fe-da86-4700-8908-54d61fa0e...@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > for your kids. You make a 'backup', and give that to the kids. You put > the original in a safe place. Yup. > If (when) the kids destroy their copy, you take the original out of the > safe place, and make a new copy for the kids. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > -- > --Tim Smith And that at least seemed to stop the arguing back and forth. I find it REMARKABLE how some of you put a label on a person of "crackpot" and then refuse to acknowledge anything they say as valuable so you will argue day and night with that person until someone else comes in and then you quiet down. The behavior is telling. You wish to permanently label certain people in a negative way and hold that label against any new evidence. This story shows how dramatic that is as well, where the fight is against a simple way to allow legal copying of bought DVD's, where that is concrete enough for people to understand just how rigid is the hostility against supposed "crackpots". I've joked in the past that many of you would reject a cure for cancer because of the source. Short of it is that your opinions against people are often meaningless as to what they state or the facts but more often than not reflect rigid personal biases which you quickly form against CERTAIN people and then refuse to shift. Oh, and of course there is also an experimental side to my posting on this subject! DMESE is a fairly simple idea which because of the nature of the problem with copying digital media actually closes the problem space, as in, it's either it, or nothing, and so far industry has sided towards nothing with many declaring DRM to be dead, which has a potential cost in the billions of dollars over time, if artists, for instance, are incapable of making as much from music sales because widespread piracy is considered unstoppable. Past experience indicates I take over web search results on topics fairly quickly, which I've demonstrated often with "definition of mathematical proof" or DMESE itself, as well as many others including disparate things like: business plan for Internet radio or prime number compression (Google them, as most of my search domination is with Google though it is often on Yahoo! as well.) But is that being done through a proper process? I've been concerned enough about it that I've contacted my U.S. senator and representative about the issue. (Senator Feinstein gave me a form letter reply. She may need to re-visit that later though as this situation develops while I'm deferring a bit, because of the financial crisis, in pursuing the issue.) If things stay to form though I should start showing up in search results on RealNetworks and their DVD copying software. If I don't then there may be more to the story of how Google and Yahoo! determine those rankings. Already I have atypical behavior on my blogs where hits have gone DOWN dramatically lately, since I started pushing this issue. Weird seemingly atypical behavior is where science starts... James Harris > > In article > > <3d65b6fe-da86-4700-8908-54d61fa0e...@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 91 lines] > > Weird seemingly atypical behavior is where science starts... So we all lose. Yup, we are all losers. That's the real secret. So "Uncle Al" and the rest of the crackpot haters, so what? You're losers along with us. You'll never get recognition for your sh.t either. Waste your lives. Put it out there like anybody cares when it's a world run by fools. Knowledge isn't power. Crap is power. And idiots rule the world... ___JSH > > > In article > > > <3d65b6fe-da86-4700-8908-54d61fa0e...@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 109 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Welcome! Now you know the real HAMMER! James "Google SWJPAM" Harris wrote: > The simple idea I had was the asking for the original DVD after 30 > days What if the original has been lost or destroyed? Isn't that the whole idea of creating a legal backup? > What makes this story almost beyond belief is the reality that > millions of United States consumers CANNOT legally copy their > DVD's!!!!!!!!! If only DVDs were as easy to copy as exclamation points!!!!!!!!! > I find it hard to believe that the mathematical community has > teamed up with Hollywood to block people around the world from > being able to legally copy their DVD's just to prevent interest > in my research. That really is hard to believe, isn't it? I mean really, really hard to believe. So hard to believe that only a crackpot would believe it, right? > You nice little sheep Weren't you whining just the other day about not being considered a human being? You wrote, "I can do what you cannot because I see you as a human being, regardless of what you said, while you clearly do not see me as one." Yet here you are calling people "sheep." Do you suppose that's something a crackpot would do? > It's a stupid world, really. Parts of it sure are. -- "Oh, hey, um, that was a stupid idea. Doesn't work. Just kind of forget that this little incident happened." -- James Harris |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.