Public spectrums are public goods. They're indirectly funded by our tax dollars. Putting DRM encryption on it is similar to a private company putting a gate on a national park and charging people to go into the park.
Funny, I see you replied the same thing! It's absolutely absurd, ludicrous, and asinine that we have to go through a private defense contractor to access PUBLIC SPACES. It makes me livid.
This is bad, so is not getting critical information without relying on a private social media company! I felt as you do when I realized my county was using Twitter for emergency alerts during a crisis. I happen not to have an account, but was fortunate to get the information from another person nearby.
To belabor the metaphor, it's like a private company putting a gate on a national park and charging people to go into the park, but also no maintenance is ever performed and there is no financial overhead to keep the park operational. It's like being charged to breathe.
You mean like Booz Allen Hamilton (CIA's private IT department) running Recreation.gov, which you MUST USE even if you show up to a park that allows reservations on the spot (they tell YOU to break out YOUR phone and go to recreation.gov), and which you CANNOT USE IF YOU DON'T WANT YOUR COMPUTER TO CONNECT TO GOOGLE'S SERVERS a la GOOGLE TRACKERS???
The point is that we as a society collectively get to set the rules. For example, if you want to use OUR spectrum to play your content, that content must be accessible to anyone who has a standard-conforming implementation.
Yeah I don't understand why it's not clear for everyone now that the only people benefiting from DRM are DRM makers. It never actually protected anything. The most outrageous example is HDCP, for which I believe one of the master key has been leaked and it's publically known (so the protection it might have offered is void), but customers still pay the HDCP tax to Intel on every device that must support it to work with other devices...
>but customers still pay the HDCP tax to Intel on every device that must support it to work with other devices...
Please do some critical thinking. There have been 3 new versions of HDCP since that leak and they have all broken backwards compatiblity. Do you think they still use that leaked key? Or do you think as they have improved the security of HDCP they have replaced the key?
If you went and looked at the security of Linux from over 10 years ago you would find some bad security vulnerabilities which have now been since patched. Similarly the security of HDCP is getting better over time and newer content is requiring the higher security that is available.
Breaking backward compatibility would be another issue if devices cannot be upgraded, some kind of planned obsolescence where you need to throw away your perfectly working device for no good reasons.
How does that work in practice though? Does it mean I cannot read recent blu-rays with older blu-ray players with the old key?
>Does it mean I cannot read recent blu-rays with older blu-ray players with the old key?
Yes, newer blurays may require a new player or a system update for your player in order to play if they require a newer security baseline than what you have.
What's the maximum time a DRM system worked before being completely broken? 2 years? 3 years? It'd be surprising that they did not anticipate that. But then again, I'm not sure why they would really care, they don't really make movies as far as I know.
Are you trying to be pedantic? Technically the MMU prevents the copying. That is just an implementation detail. To content creators the distinction isn't important.
>DRM has never worked.
The barriers have seriously increased over time. Now you have to dump or buy a L1 key to decrypt content. Devices store the key securely which means that you either need to find a hardware vulnerability to leak the key or have a man on the inside to steal keyboxes. If you get caught your key / device will get blacklisted. With each year the price to break the DRM will increase.
Money makes the rules, the mainstream media pushes it out into the public and politicians set them in stone. The public has no say in this. At all. Any consent you perceive is either pushed hard for by the media, or is fabricated by pushing the screaming people into everyone else heads. Please stop being naive.
The only reason, why the groups in power even care about creating the illusion of massive public consent about anything, is because that's what they need to do to make sure their respective parties get re-elected.
It's not as though the encryption only kicks in when copyrighted shows/movies are on the screen; it covers the ad breaks, the breaking news/emergency alert interruptions, and everyone else on the channel too.
The electromagnetic spectrum is used by many private companies, like carriers. Would you want to disband that as well, and make it free for everyone to use?
(I'm a huge proponent that all infrastructure should be public, but I still think that carrier usage should be paid by the users, at least beyond some minimal usage)
Broadcasting is a "one-to-many" operation, where the target "many" is indeed the public. Concern about public interest is relevant.
Carriers create a "one-to-one" service. Users of the service are not being addressed in a public manner except in an infrastructural way (broadcast addresses in a content-oriented as well as infrastructural method). Concern about public interest can only be limited to "can any member of the public obtain this service?"
Exactly. It's also a very finite resource, and while some of the spectrum is allocated for private use, it is the FCC's job to protect that which is for public interest as well. Broadcast television is the only kind of television some people can receive, and it is in our collective interest to keep that open and accessible.
The electromagnetic spectrum is OURS collectively. Public broadcast licenses are rooted in the idea of a well informed public is good for everyone.
Encryption is just a move to monetize what is otherwise a public resource.
I object to that and will be making a comment to that effect.
Thanks for the heads up.