![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Something I've never understood
New Apple computers have HDCP, which is a nefarious copy protection system, built into the video-out ports. So you can't play HDCP-protected videos on non-HDCP-compliant (read: older than brand new) monitors. And everyone is up in arms about their civil liberties being infringed.
So here's my question: since when has watching TV and movies at a sharper resolution been that important? Why does anyone care? They released a technology that is totally superfluous, and then saddled it with oppressive DRM. The response here is to just not buy that technology, not to become self-righteous about the DRM.
You poor things, only standard-definition movies. However will you survive?
So here's my question: since when has watching TV and movies at a sharper resolution been that important? Why does anyone care? They released a technology that is totally superfluous, and then saddled it with oppressive DRM. The response here is to just not buy that technology, not to become self-righteous about the DRM.
You poor things, only standard-definition movies. However will you survive?
no subject
no subject
I mean, it's better, I just never got this mindset that sees it as a necessity to have.
no subject
Of course it's not necessary, but it's nice. Why have things be visibly blurry when you can... not?
no subject
If that was the only difference, then of course, sharper is better. It's not though: there's the DRM, the crippling cost, incompatibility with older equipment...
If you really want sharp video that badly, more power to you. I just don't understand the people who think the corporations involved are tyrants for putting DRM in it. You aren't entitled to it, it's a luxury.
Now, net neutrality, that's worth fighting for. HD video I just don't get though.
We also walked to school in the snow uphill both ways
Re: We also walked to school in the snow uphill both ways
HD stuff is the same as DVD, except it's more expensive and looks sharper. There's nothing fundamentally different, it just looks better. I don't see how it's a required upgrade.
Re: We also walked to school in the snow uphill both ways
Everything else, i'm with you. I really don't care about HDTV anyway. I am cynical enough to think most of this stuff exists to trick people into spending money.
Re: We also walked to school in the snow uphill both ways
So that was kind of cool.
no subject
It's not civil liberties that people are that much up in arms about. It's the "We paid for HD content, and even though our display supports 1080p your stupid DRM won't let me playback the format I purchased."
If I pay the premium for HD content, I want to be able to play it anywhere I take the media and supports 1080p. Otherwise I would have just paid for the DVD to begin with and not the Blue-ray.
Re: We also walked to school in the snow uphill both ways
no subject
Read also many projectors.
since when has watching TV and movies at a sharper resolution been that important?
DVD video compression is horrible. The artifacts are very noticeable, especially on DVDs like 28 Days Later, which had a longish film with lots of bonus features and footage squeezed onto a single disc, necessitating a higher compression ratio. It prolly didn't help in that specific case that the movie had lots of dark (which encourages artifacts) and was shot on low grade digital.
That said, I don't watch enough movies to care enough to upgrade to Bluray.
The response here is to just not buy that technology, not to become self-righteous about the DRM.
From skimming the articles about it, they did not disclose that they added HDCP to the new MacBooks nor do they disclose the restriction looking at the Hellboy 2 (the example movie) in the iTunes store. As someone who does show movies on projectors from time to time, I'd be pretty irritated if I lost the ability to do so with no disclosure.
Also, there's nothing wrong with not buying something and complaining about it. That's part of why iTunes now sells unprotected versions (of some songs) rather than just DRM laden files. Feedback and discussion drive the future.
no subject
I see a clear difference and if there was motion it'd be even more annoying to me.
no subject
DRM sucks, and it's fine to protest it, I do all the time. I dunno, it's just this attitude that people have a god-given right to watch HD video and that any limitations on watching it are the same as burning printing presses or something.
This article is what set this off.
no subject
DRM is all about FUD. Even the name is a lie. It only works when people don't know exactly what the restrictions are, just that stuff only works right when you have all new devices from major manufacturers.
My problem is that Cory's outrage here is also FUD. There's no reason why anyone would have to throw away a Mac, or why Macs are any more locked down than Vista, or why most people would ever run into this problem. However, the article implies that Macs will just stop working entirely, because of DRM, after a couple years.
DRM is bad enough that I don't believe we have to lie to people to get them to reject it.
no subject
Just don't elevate being ripped off on a copy of Spiderman to a constitutional crisis, like a particularly annoying species of forum troll seems to. That's what I'm complaining about.
no subject
The Ars article (http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2008/11/17/apple-brings-hdcp-to-a-new-aluminum-macbook-near-you) is much more reasonable about it.