Give Your DVD Player The Finger 620
sebFlyte writes "Wired is reporting on some scary new DRM tech being developed. From the article: 'At the store, someone buying a new DVD would have to provide a password or some kind of biometric data, like a fingerprint or iris scan, which would be added to the DVD's RFID tag. Then, when the DVD was popped into a specially equipped DVD player, the viewer would be required to re-enter the data.'"
Authenticate This! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Authenticate This! (Score:5, Insightful)
Couch it in a "biometrics data" study on some college campus and you'll have kids LINING UP to give you biometric data, and probably more than that. They sign up for credit cards, giving name, address, income, and a ton more for a t-shirt. I've seen it happen. They run out of shirts before they run out of applicants.
Combine it with Avi Rubin's "get all the identity-theft information you can for $50" class and you've got a world-class identity theft scheme.
Gifts? Online purchases? (Score:5, Interesting)
Can I just use the finger that I found at Wendy's?
Seriously though, what if you wanted to buy a gift for somebody? This isn't going to work all that well.
How about on-line purchases? Would they take a 'sample' and keep it on file to encode something at a later time. Who is going to trust the security of that?
I don't see it happening.
Re:Gifts? Online purchases? (Score:5, Insightful)
However, it may yet be useful in securing workprints and pre-release copies. That would decrease bootlegging. A workprint of Star Wars III hit the BitTorrent networks yesterday. You can be sure George is looking to employ this technology when he makes his next Indiana Jones.
Re:Gifts? Online purchases? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Gifts? Online purchases? (Score:3, Interesting)
However, to think that the next DVD you buy or that next CD you purchase will require you to input a fingerprint scan is very far
Re:Gifts? Online purchases? (Score:4, Interesting)
Not everything can be reverse-engineered effectively. As far as I know the latest DirecTV encryption technology hasn't been broken yet, and it's been out for a while. Then again, maybe it can be broken (or has been broken) but it's just easier for people to hack another provider's encoding/encryption scheme.
Re:Gifts? Online purchases? (Score:5, Funny)
Hell YEAH! Soon those pathetic alternatives to our monopolistic cable plants will be bankrupt and we can get back to offerering minimal services for maximal prices.
Slashdot for one will welcome their new cable provider overlords!
Re:Gifts? Online purchases? (Score:3, Insightful)
buy dvd
find out how encryption works (using your finger)
write software to decrypt dvd (using the key [value of your finger])
extend software to write to an MPEG from video
distrobute MPEG
Once the software has been written, it can be distrobuted from france and anybody who buys a dvd can use the software to create an mpeg out of it (although it would cost as much as a fingerprint scanner for the initial uploaders first upload)
Re:Gifts? Online purchases? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Gifts? Online purchases? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Gifts? Online purchases? (Score:2)
It could be an iris scan!!!
THEY WANT TO PUT YOU IN JAIL BY DEFAULT!!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
They need to make things EASIER and more attractive to the consumer, not less!
If a restrictive, half-baked scheme like this went through, it'd be easier to buy the damn media, and then download a cracked copy off your favorite p2p so you can easily view the movie you paid for on your laptop.
Re:only for previews. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:only for previews. (Score:4, Informative)
Yes [cnn.com]. They can and they have traced them back to the person the screeners were given to (see third paragraph from the bottom). Did the studios do anything?
Yes [yahoo.com], they sued and got a default judgement for $300k. Sounds effective to me.
Re:Gifts? Online purchases? (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no way the public would touch this with a barge pole - I can see it being useful for oscar pre-releases etc. but if the firm that came up with the idea thought it had any mass-market potential they need their heads examining.
Re:Gifts? Online purchases? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Gifts? Online purchases? (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, here on Bizarro Earth Americans are well known for their concern for the environment. That's why President Gore was re-elected, nobody drives SUVs, and Americans no longer produce more trash per capita than any other industrialized nation. And that's why DIVX failed--on Bizarro Earth.
Re:Gifts? Online purchases? (Score:3, Insightful)
How is being forced to sit through 15 minutes of previews, many for DVDs that I already own, every time I insert a disc unintrusive?
Re:Gifts? Online purchases? (Score:5, Funny)
Unintrusive? No. Effective? Apparently.
Re:Gifts? Online purchases? (Score:3, Insightful)
It is DRM enforced by technology with the LAW backing up the technology - so if the technology is overridden, you could find your behind being "overridden" by a big man named Bubba in the Federal pen for the next 5 years after which i
Re:Gifts? Online purchases? (Score:3, Funny)
That may be because most of the public doesn't have a barge pole, and the ones that do are probably somewhere where they aren't any dvds to touch with it.
fP? (Score:2, Funny)
user friendly (Score:4, Funny)
Re:user friendly (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a non-starter (Score:5, Insightful)
Couple quotes from TFA:
Unfavorable bovine comparisons notwithstanding, these two statements sum up nicely why this will never happen:
Add to all this the increased costs of manufacturing the 'specially equipped DVD players' mentioned in the article, and it's easy to see why this idea is a non-starter.
Re:This is a non-starter (Score:4, Informative)
Already done [interesting-people.org]. Finegrprints are easily fakeable, another reason to reject biometrics. If someone else uses your fingerprints how can you recall it, change it?
Re:This is a non-starter (Score:5, Insightful)
This could easily be employed by the MPAA as a smokescreen. Say they want to implement X, a restrictive DRM scheme.
They publically announce that they are going to "adopt" this fingerprint idea or some other draconian, over-the-top, Big-Brother DRM technology and attempt to push it down people's throats. They wait for the inevitable backlash, and say, "We're sorry for trying to do that. We'll use this less invasive DRM scheme X instead."
Re:This is a non-starter (Score:3, Informative)
Re:This is a non-starter (Score:3, Informative)
same here: dvdshrink to the rescue (Score:5, Informative)
solution? burn an unencrypted copy using dvdshrink, and then they can fast forward to their heart's content - and also it doesn't matter if little'un scratches the disk.
Invasive technologies... (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope.
Re:Invasive technologies... (Score:4, Insightful)
Besides that, how would you give such a crippled DVD as a gift? Or order one online, for that matter.
Re:Invasive technologies... (Score:3, Informative)
I think you are way over reacting.
The solution is actually quite simple.
Simply select the least valuable finger and amputate it. Leave that finger with the DVD player so that it can authorize all disks you purchase. (Note, you would need to take the finger to the store w
wow..just wow (Score:3, Insightful)
Brave New First Post (Score:5, Funny)
save for future reference: (Score:5, Informative)
In order to fake a fingerprint, one needs an original first. Latent fingerprints are nothing but fat and sweat on touched items. Thus to retrieve someone elses fingerprint (in this case the fingerprint you want to forge) one should rely on well tested forensic research methods. Which is what's to be explained here. (Figure 1).
A good source of originals for our counterfeits are glasses, doorknobs and glossy paper. The standard method of forensic research makes them visible: Sprinkling it with colored powder, which sticks to the fat (Figure 2).
Another solution involves Cyanoacrylat, the main ingredient of superglue. A small amount thereof is poured into a bottlecap, which is then turned upside down and put over the fingerprint. (Figure 3).
The Cyanoacrylat gasses out and reacts with the fat residue to a solid, white substance (Figure 4).
The further treatment involves scanning/photographing (Figure 5) and a bit of graphical refurbishment (Figure 6).
The goal is to get an exact image of the fingerprint, for further use as mold, out of which the dummy is made. The easiest way is to print the image on a transparency slide (the ones normally used for an overhead projector) with a laser printer. The toner forms a relief, which is later used similar to letter press printing. Wood glue is suitable for producing the dummy (Figure 7)
A small dash of glycerene may be used to optimize humidity and workability. After thorough mixing, the dummy gets coated with a thin layer of the compound (Figure 8,9).
After the glue has dried (Figure 10), it is pulled off the foil (Figure 11) and is cut to finger size.
Theatrical glue is used to glue the dummy onto the own finger (Figure 12).
The new identity is ready!
Why would anyone buy this? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is nuts.
Re:Why would anyone buy this? (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's do a thought experiment. Suppose the crack man, having a local monopoly, develops a new form of the drug that requires one of his fancy hi-tech crack pipes. Do you suppose that all the addicts will just pay the extra money indefinitely, so he can get richer? That another dealer might not be tempted to offer an alternative?
Those of us who are old enough will remember "copy
Thick as theives (Score:3, Insightful)
You treat most people like theives. More accurately, you treat them like they could be thieves. You lock your car and your house, because you don't trust people you haven't met. When you rent a car or a movie they go to great lengths to assure you'll give it back. You assume people are thieves because it's easier than getting your stuff back later.
When you say "treat them like
treated like a thief (Score:4, Insightful)
After the transformation, it seems that every business is first and foremost in the business of making money. The products they market are mere incidentals, necessary evils in order to further their primary mission. Witness that GM revenue is divided 1/3 - 2/3 between selling cars and selling financing. (forget which third is which) They're making a significant amount of their revenue dabbling in what used to be banks' business. Or consider that a sizable part of Microsoft's revenue comes from playing financial games, and that their multibillion dollar war chest gives them a lot of ability to do this.
There's a more subtle shift here, too. Prior to the transformation of the 80's, employees were valuable resources, especially those with experience. Now employees are annoying expenses, and a drain on profits. Customers used to be valued, hoping for return business. Now, at least in some industries, they're "thieves."
I had a discussion with my son about this last night on the way home. He received several downloaded songs from friends of a European group called, "Nightwish." He now has 5 of their 6 CDs, and my daughter has 2. (and as soon as my son can find the 6th, actually their first, he wants to buy it.) I asked how likely he would have been to plunk down $17 for a CD never having really heard their music, and of course he said, "not at all." A few downloaded songs have translated to 7, potentially 8 sales, in my immediate family.
Oh, some time ago, after he had begun his Nightwish collection I sternly cautioned him about any trading in downloaded songs.
The ??AA is also more than a little STUPID in counting every downloaded song or movie as a lost unit of revenue. Case in point, me. I think long and hard before plunking down $15 for a CD. If CDs (that I like) were $7.50, I'll bet I'd buy more than twice as many. If they were $5.00, I'll bet my purchases would more than triple. At some point, I'd reach my limit of storage and clutter.
But for the guy the RIAA is suing with 10,000 songs, or whatever, he NEVER HAD the kind of money to buy that much music. Even if he had a good income, when it costs real money, you balance your music against food, rent, clothing, gasoline, eating out, going to the movies, going to concerts, etc. The only reason he would have that collection of 10,000 songs is because they were (at the time) effectively free, costing only bandwidth and space.
Choke off ALL downloads, filesharing, etc, and I suspect the ??AA wouldn't see more than even a 10% increase in their sales. Lacking the "free" source, I'll bet those people would simply choose not to buy, most of the time.
Another doomed idea (Score:2, Insightful)
So... (Score:3, Insightful)
Right. You know, I'm all for worrying about my rights, but I think, at least in this, we are being far to paraniod for our own good. And in the process, giving your average walmart worker far too much credit.
I hope you don't have kids. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is crazy talk, really, and really prevents the fair use rights we have now (loaning to friends, etc.)
Why don't they just sell tickets every time we want to watch a DVD? "They're $2 cheaper per viewing than going to the theater!"
"Mommy, the movie broke again!" (Score:5, Funny)
"Hello?"
"Mommy, movie broke again."
"Honey, I told you that when I'm at work I cannot authorize, er unlock the movie for you."
"Mommy, I wanna watch my movie!"
"I know, sweetheart, but I can't come home until later. Please play with your toys until then, or let your older brother play one of his movies for you instead."
"Yuck! Hate "Kill, Kick, & Maim!" I wanna watch "Honeydumpling Sweethearts" again."
"I understand, but you'll have to wait."
"WAAAAAAAAAAAA!"
(Silently cursing DRM)
Actually... (Score:3, Interesting)
Boss (at cubicle): "Um, Susan - please come with me, there's a situation..."
Susan (getting up and walking): "Sure - what's going on, Bill...?"
Bill (walking down hallway to entrance with Susan): "The police are here, and they want to speak with you - is there a problem...?"
Susan (confused look on face): "Uh, no - Bill, what is going on...?
they tried that (Score:2)
People hated it, the only remnent is a character on penny-arcade.
Re:they tried that (Score:3, Insightful)
They tried to hire me, I worked out the scheme they were proposing during the telephone call with the rec
No fair-use? No thanks! (Score:5, Interesting)
The market has already proven this won't work.
Gadh said he could not reveal specifically how the system would work, as it is still in the research stage. A prototype will be available by the end of the summer, he said, and at that point, it will be shopped around to movie studios and technology companies.
Thanks for giving this company free advertising to the media conglomorates Wired/Slashdot, the market appreciates it!
When something strinkingly familiar was posted a couple of days ago here [slashdot.org], I said almost exactly what I am going to say here: How does this product enable me to enact fair-use?
It doesn't.
Re:No fair-use? No thanks! (Score:5, Informative)
As a dotrine, Fair Use is an affirmative defense to a claim of infringement. This means the person claiming Fair Use has the burden of proving that their actions did not constitute infringement.
The obvious problem, if you are defending an infringement claim is that it is extremely expensive to succssfully raise a Fair Use or Parody defense, which, if it fails, causes the heavy hammer of infringement and all its penalties falls down upon you. Because of this, it's common to hear, "Yes, it's probably fair use. You will spend a billion dollars to get a chance to prove that." Just ask these guys [wired.com].
Re:No fair-use? No thanks! (Score:3, Insightful)
You are living in bizarro world (Score:3, Insightful)
You've got that backwards. Naturally, every person has the (legal, if not material) power to do whatever they please. Governments are composed of people, artificial entities created specifically to combine material powers in order to curb other people's powers for some supposed greater good. What powers are not curbed by the government are your "rights", i.e. those actions that are not held to be wrong by the government, and
This would kill the industry (Score:5, Insightful)
I, for one, would never purchase a product that required this level of security for my home entertainment. The only time I would consider giving my fingerprint or some other biometric data would be for a HIGH security job.
I don't trust any person at electronics stores with my SS#, why would I trust them with more personal information?What happens when you loose your finger? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:What happens when you loose your finger? (Score:2)
I wouldn't worry about this (Score:3, Insightful)
There's no compelling reason for consumers to agree to even more useless encumberance than we already face with CSS, Macrovision and region coding.
What fingerprint would they need? (Score:5, Funny)
Not gonna work. (Score:2)
If I buy a teletubbies DVD for my kids I'll be damned if I have to demean myself to actually playing it for them!
I'd rather not be in the house at all when that sh*t is happening.
Pete
Outrageous! (Score:5, Funny)
DVDs have never been horribly crippled in any way in the past, so they shouldn't be in the future.
Re:Outrageous! (Score:4, Insightful)
Hear that? (Score:2)
Dupe? (Score:2)
hmmm (Score:5, Funny)
Re:hmmm (Score:5, Funny)
It gets worse, Pr0n will probably use an imprint of your schmeckle. Then you'd have to have your dad's weenie to watch his Pr0n after he's gone --- way beyond nasty.
Wow. (Score:2)
Libraries (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Libraries (Score:3, Funny)
DIVX (Score:3, Insightful)
Genious (Score:2)
This will make the negative feelings surrounding systems like pay-per-view seem less so.
Yeah right... (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
This isn't a problem (Score:2, Insightful)
This will ENCOURAGE piracy (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, everyone will have and regularly use a DVD copier. And, once you're copying it for yourself, what's the difference if you make a few extra copies? Hey, while I'm sitting here, Aunt Martha might enjoy this movie too.....
Horrible... (Score:2)
"Honey, can I get your finger print before I go to the store?
My FINGER PRINT?
Uhh.... nooooo.... just uh...."
Evil Researchers (Score:2, Insightful)
Market for rubber fingers (Score:2)
Netflix/Blockbuster? (Score:2)
Remember DIVX? (Score:2)
That was less intrusive, and it flopped because people didn't buy it.
I'll bet this new technology doesn't get even as far as DIVX did.
Military Secrets , (Score:2)
Maybe comercial software activation.
Now that's smart... (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm sure the MPIA/RIAA are going to be all over this.
Gifting (Score:2)
The notion will never gain traction. It's quite stupid.
Obviously a stupid concept (Score:2)
Who in the hell is going to be willing to go through a fingerprint scan or whatnot in order to purchase a DVD? How about anal probes for people buying books while we're at it?
This won't work: (Score:3, Insightful)
On second thought, I hope the MPAA does this, so a huge class-action lawsuit against the MPAA is filed on behalf of all the people who can't use it. And another class-action suit for all the sellers who loose business because of it. And another by the EFF or whoever on behalf of consumers in general. We could be looking at several billion dollars here, all told.
Re:This won't work: (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't forget to bring the Americans with Disabilities Act into the fray. How is a quadriplegic supposed to use this?
Nope. (Score:3, Insightful)
It's time to return to my little library of books, which are light, were cheap, are deeper than DVDs or CDs, and don't accuse me every time I interact with them.
Education, Education, Education (Score:3)
At the moment all people are hearing is that a few nerds are getting arrested for pirating dvds and music and that pirating dvds and music is BAD. 6 months ago I was talking to my girlfriends dad. He was harping on about how evil pirating music and dvds is, and that they should throw the book at them. 2 months ago I got him a mac and taught him how to use iTunes. Last night he asked me how he could share his iTunes with me so that we didn't have to buy the same disc/aacs twice, like he used to do with tapes. He didn't see the connection between doing that and piracy. Now he cares. He feels that his right to share music within 'the family' are being restricted. I also bought them a DVB-T box. He's annoyed that he can't watch one channel and record another, like he's always been able to... I wonder how long it will be until he starts to want to know how I do it.
Doctrin of First Sale ... (Score:3, Interesting)
DVDs instead of being an object you'd 'bought' and own and can do anything will become something you've licensed like software and don't get to do anything with it when you're done.
I'll stop using technology and move to a monastery long before I'll give my )#$*% thumb-print to turn on a DVD or somesuch. This is patently absurd, and I really hope that the consumer market rejects any such plan.
This story is not about protecting digital rights. (Score:3, Insightful)
Interesting... but won't play (Score:3, Interesting)
This assumes that ANYBODY who wants to buy material (movies) also has an "always on" internet connection.
Not true.
This assumes that the purchaser is the end user.
Not true.
This assumes the replacement of millions of DVD players.
Not true (unless extra features are supplied - eg HD DVD).
The assumes that First Sale rights will be eliminated, and people won't notice.
Not true (even Blockbuster "buys back" DVDs).
Schools, institutions and libraries won't be able to purchase the material -- it will be useless to them. Not even families (hey, *I* buy Lion King, but the *kids* load it and watch it -- and I am not even necessarily in town).
Individuals only.
The product sold (well, not sold in this case) has less value. It should cost a lot less. In which case it MIGHT play. Effective pricing? If I can currently purchase a movie for $20, and I can sell the movie to Blockbuster for $5, the new format can cost no more than $15.
Further, the inability to use as a gift item means it is purely a personal purchase (even the kids can't use it). My wife sets my "discretionary foolish purchase" limit at $10. So, it can't be more than $10.
Now, I expect them to subsidize part of my Internet bill. Knock off a couple of bucks for that, as well as an incentive to purchase a new player.
There you go; I am willing to spend $5 for a new movie in that format -- TOPS.
Will that play?
Ratboy
Fielding reactions (Score:3, Interesting)
Seriously... if only some of your dvds are RFID-DRM'd, meaning your play will play non-RFID-DRM DVDs, then just disable the RFID tag in a DVD and viola, no thumb print needed.
I guess this is the end of Amazon and Netflix... (Score:4, Interesting)
That sounds like a pretty big chunk-o-change to throw out the window. Not even the MPAA is that stupid.
maybe.
-S
Reaching the limit? (Score:3, Informative)
I don't believe there is a level of DRM, strong enough to work, that the public will tolerate. I don't believe that the *AA will be able to strongarm the market into adopting blu-ray or whatever - they'll just lose so much money trying that they'll have to surrender and release on DVD. I know that politicians, bought or not, don't dare push the public too far.
Sooner or later the only option is going to be: let people copy, because you can't stop them.
What will the *AA do when they realize their bind?
Remember Divx? (Score:3, Insightful)
Look, the thing is, people buy movies and such so they'd have the convenience to watch it any time, at any place of their own choosing, and as many times as they want. Certainly, MPAA et al can put in the restrictions, but they are just slapping us in the face at the same time they are robbing us. Why would we pay for something that will be less convenient? Let them put these things out and let them lose their money on it.
What the hell ever happened to "the customer is always right" anyway? Why have we gone from being customers to being cattle? Why is it that the people who are NOT pirating the movies, etc., getting more angry about these things? Why do we think $25-$50 for a DVD is a reasonable price?
And while I am at it, how could the MPAA claim it's losing money that it's never made?
Oh, Where to Start (Score:3, Insightful)
It will be an interesting demonstration of technical abilities, but who is going to pay more for player that's harder to use?
Until the players are widely adopted, what movie company is going to release their product exclusively in such a limited format? So we have a chicken and egg problem.
Requiring the buyer to be present kills off all mail order and gift sales. Bye bye Amazon.
This encoding equipment would need to be at all retail locations. Hello higher prices! And don't forget lost sales when the equipment fails.
No more rental market. Bye bye Netflix and Blockbuster.
And the real secret agenda here: No more used DVD sales! Every viewer has to buy a new DVD!!
While the last part is an MPAA wet dream come true, they'd have to virtually end their highly profitable DVD sales until they could force consumers to buy the new players. Then it becomes a tug-o-war over will the consumers buy new, much more restrictive, players just to keep watching movies, or will the movie studios lose their immensely profitable home market DVD sales.
My guess, this is another DIVX fiasco in the making. A system that works, does what it is intended to do, and will never sell. There really is a limit to the stupidity of the consumers, and I think this exceeds it.
Even if the government mandates all new player have this feature (and survives the next election after doing so), they can't force you to buy them.
Absolutely Ridiculous (Score:4, Funny)
In addition, if this were implemented and someone broke into your home and stole your DVDs, they'd also want your finger too. Great. So now human fingers become a commodity on the black market; beautiful.
DRM rights for the consumer. (Score:3, Informative)
1) As someone else pointed out, the end of mailorder DVD sales. Amazon, are you listening?
2) The end of DVDs as gifts. How are you going to provide the recipients finger print at purchase time?
3) The ultimate parental control. If daddy buys the DVD then the kids, and the wife, cannot watch it unless daddy provides his fingerprint.
4) The end of high end home theatre systems that distribute content throughout the house. Do you really want to pick a movie from the comfort of your bed and then run downstairs to the player and provide your finger to print?
5) Forget leaving your media library to anyone in your will, if you don't will them a finger then they will never be able to use them.
6) What about injuries? If you crush your hand you're going to get sent home from the hospital in a cast with a bottle of pain killers. What better way to recover than to lie in bed and watch old movies -- except your finger in now innaccessible!
The issues are already starting to enter the market but most people haven't figured it out yet. Your average iPod user won't really understand Apple's DRM until their device is outdated and they buy a different one and then learn they have to re-purchase all of their favorite music for the new device. The content should be required to clearly print the types of devices that it will work with AND the devices that it won't work with. Unfortunately non-tech savy people are never going to understand these things until they get bitten by them.
What really needs to happen to slow the content owners down is to make it ILLEGAL for them to charge for the same content twice. If someone purchases a movie on DVD and the studios want to release it in another format then the studios should be required to provide a copy of the content in the new format to anyone that has legally purchased the original version. If someone buys a portable music player that is not compatible with their iTunes music then the music studios should be required to offer an exchange of their iTunes music to the new format free of charge. This is not a perfect solution (it doesn't ensure that music purchased for the living room will play in the car) but it should at least give the content owners pause before introducing new technologies.
If a new DVD player has to be online to verify that the certificate in the player is still valid and the content can be played then if that certificate is ever revoked the company that manufactured that DVD player should be required to replace the player free of charge. If they choose to fix it instead then they should have a week at most to fix it. If anywhere along this chain the content won't play on the purchaser's preferred playback device the content owners should be required to provide the content in the format that the consumer wants. Period. If the content owners refuse then the retail outlets that sold the content should be required to provide a no questions asked refund. It should be made easy to win a lawsuit against the content owners and/or the retail outlet that sold/produced the movie/music for breach of contract if any of these things are violated. It needs to become more expensive for the content owners to screw their consumers than it is to the consumers who are getting screwed.
Sadly, this will never happen. The content owners have purchased too many politicians for any laws of this type to
Smartest Cow (Score:3, Interesting)
That's why this is stupid. Eventually there'll be a bugmenot.com for DVDs, where the community selects one universal token for identification.
Six words make this idea worthless (Score:3, Funny)
People still buy DVD's at STORES?
Well... (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, when are the DRM-supporters going to realize that they're just making piracy more and more appealing? I don't buy (or pirate) movies, but if I ever wanted to, I certainly wouldn't consent to giving up biometric data. The scary thing is that most people probably would, no questions asked.
Re:This will never work (Score:5, Insightful)