Something I've never understood

[rbandrews]

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?

Comments

[candle.livejournal.com]

(read: older than brand new) monitors

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.

[candle.livejournal.com]

Some examples of the difference in quality (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=811102)

I see a clear difference and if there was motion it'd be even more annoying to me.

[rbandrews]

Everyone seems to do that when I bring this up... There's absolutely a difference. HD is beautiful, no doubt about it. It's just not a necessity to have.

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.

[candle.livejournal.com]

BoingBoing is not a high quality commentary site to begin with and Cory Doctorow is an idiot. He's a fanboy of the worst type (Apple (prior to this), kitsch, anti-DRM) and happily bends reality to fit his view of things. Listening to him for advice on computers is like listening to the typical RedState poster on political matters.

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.

[rbandrews]

I guess it's the difference between "I like HD video and I won't buy any if you don't remove the DRM" and "DRM on HD video? I'll never buy one of your computers again!"

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.