On the contrary, it prevents me from being able to use my purchased data in ways that are well within my rights just because some people abuse those rights.
It does not limit you in your rights. If someone abuses it, that person has to be prosecuted. And with La Grande it's easier to detect abuse than without. For example it could detect when a program is attempting to read or write priviledged data. La Grande is not above the law.
My 'paranoia' is that if I purchase a CD or a DVD, music, data, or otherwise, I have every right to both make a hard backup and to transport that data to a different media. I will not give up these rights while I have a choice.
What makes you believe La Grande restricts you from doing these things, within the boundaries of law?
Saying that any form of DRM is acceptable because of the behavior of some computer users is like saying that drivers licenses must become a microchip implanted in your skin because some people drive without a license or that auto insurance has to be a mandatory portion of people's car payments because some people drive without insurance.
Digital Rights Management. Damn, it has the word 'rights' in it. Your rights, but also those of the company who created the data. And if you had a company yourself, wouldn't you want to prevent people from doing unrightful things with -your- stuff?
Driving a car without a lisence is a crime that has to be punished. Implanting a chip is no better than having it on paper so I don't see what you're trying to proof.
It's like saying that all telephones have to be operated by credit cards because some people don't pay their phone bills.
People that don't pay their telephone bills can't call. At least that how it works in my country...
It's like saying that VCRs require a digital photographic scan of the box that a video tape came in because some people copy videos or that VCRs can no longer have a specific line out for video and audio channels because those can be fed into devices other than TVs where they might be used to copy data, whether for legal uses or not.
Well, actually they should have protection as well. But... the problem is much smaller here than with computers. With internet you can do illegal stuff en masse without anyone noticing it and without knowing your identity. That's inacceptable.
That's like saying that all internet service providers must now require some form of age verification every time a web page is accessed because some kids choose to look at things that they know they shouldn't.
I don't see a need for that because there's no law that says they can't do it. Again, that's how it works in my country...
Your argument is baseless. First of all PCs are hardly ever handed out for free, so money is a laughable excuse. Besides which, the use of a computer is not a constitutionally granted right inherant to all people. It's a privalege of money. If you can't afford it, then don't do it.
Oh, many people do have the money. But I'd rather save 50 € and take my girlfriend to a romantic night out. But if you prefer to buy a firewall with that money... Actually, if I get you right, you'd rather have computer prices to be tenfold, so that only rich people like yourself who inherently are better people for working with computers can buy one.
Second of all time is just as laughable. It hardly takes any time at all when compared to seting up a PC or even just installing something as simple as MS Office. And if people didn't have time then they wouldn't surf the internet in non-productive ways and wouldn't run non-productive software (I.E. games) on their PC.
Yes, setup time is nothing. But it's the time you actually lose with protecting your data that concerns me. For example, suppose the whole world is harassing your firewall while you're working (or, say, playing Quake). What will you do, disconnect? The same goes for viruses. People that are not fully aware of the dangers can loose all their precious data. That can take days to recover. All lost time that might have been prevented with La Grande technology.
Third is knowledge, which is just as pathetic of an excuse. If in the age of information a person can use a PC but not be capable of finding this knowledge then I dare say that they wouldn't even be able to use their PC in the first place.
Ok, let me give an example. One of my friends is making a doctorate thesis about the vegetation patterns in an African reserve. He uses data from a NASA sattelite and uses a 100,000 € program for processing the data. He's nearly an expert at using this program. On the other hand, he's very bad at managing his computer, and maybe even a newbie hacker could get access to his precious data. So, he -could- learn how to manage and protect his stuff, but that's just lost time for him and it simply doesn't interest him. Regularly someone gives him a hand, but wouldn't it all be simpler if security was implicit with La Grande technology?
And again, all of your arguments go back to one simple point: Is the user willing? Since when is willingness an acceptable opt-out for responsability? Say someone irresponsibly gets drunk at a bar and then drives home, well past intoxicated. Now say that someone in front of them slams on their brakes, and the drunken driver is too intoxicated to hit their own brakes in time to avoid causing an accident. Just because the driver wasn't willing to pay that extra money for a taxi or willing to take that extra time to walk home does not in any way make them less responsible for the accident and certainly not any less responsible for the damage that may happen to themself and their car.
Oh, so if a hacker steals some of your data, it's your fault? The only one who did something wrong was the hacker. Unfortunately, without La Gande technology he can do things unnoticed and anonymously. With it, it's possible to detect any abuse and it might even retrieve identification data, from him!
Using a PC is no different from anything else. If you can't use it responsibly then at the very minimum you're at least partially responsible for any damages caused by your irresponsible usage.
Well, a virus or a hacker taking your data is not "your irresponsible usage", is it? It's the hacker's (ab)usage. What you suggest is that people without protection should rightfully get attacks. Sick.
Actually, it's also called Palladin, DRM, and several other names. And so long as that's exactly what it is, an option, a not required feature to protect the people who are otherwise too irresponsible to properly use their own PC, then I have absolutely no problem with it. Let it be a non-required feature that I can either not buy or disable without in any way affecting any of my PC usage. Then it's a tool and it's great! Yes, I said that DRM as a non-required tool is great. However as a requirement that cannot be disabled and my software cannot run without it, that is just plain wrong.
Don't mix the hardware with the software. La Grande is hardware, a bunch of transistors, and innocent in itself. That's why you should't reject it, especially since it can be turned off. It gives you new possibilities, and that's always a good thing. Period.
Now about Palladium, that's another story. It's a piece of software that can abuse the hardware. But... they simply can't do that. If a program requires it, and it's doing something unrightful, the program will not sell. It's as simple as that. New altenatives will appear that do use it rightfully, or not at all. Either way, La Grande nor Palladium is above the law.
Completely incorrect as is all of your argument so far. Joe Blow is exactly the cause of the loss of rights by not standing up for his rights. Joe H4X0r is only responsible for the damage caused. Society is responsible for the reaction to that damage. RIAA has every right to sue individuals and reclaim damages. If we as members of society however allow big businesses to take away our rights, we are the ones responsible for our loss of freedom.
What makes you think Joe Blow will not stand up for his rights? If the technology prevents him from doing something the rightfully could do without it, he has all the reason to sue who's responsible.
The problem with you and so many people in the world today is that no one wants to accept that they're actually responsible for anything anymore. The mentality is that it's always someone else's fault. No, I'm not responsible for my kids being so mentally warped that they walked into school with a gun and killed 32 people. No, it must be the fault of the people who made those evil video games that I purchased for them. It must be the fault of the evil Hollywood producers who made those awful movies that I let them watch even though the rating on the movie clearly states that it isn't intended for them at their young age. I'm not responsible. It's someone else's fault!
I completely agree... But it doesn't apply to this situation. If my data gets stolen because I did not install some sequrity program, it's really not my fault but the hacker's. If parents let young kids play ultra-violent games, they simply can't ignore responsability if anything goes wrong. That's something completely different. Go to court with the hacker, and you'll certainly win. Go to court with the game programmers and you might end up in jail yourself if you encouraged your kids to play games not meant for their age.
Well face the fact: If you allow someone to take your rights away without even putting up a fight, then you are just as responsible for the loss of those rights as everyone else who did the same.
Huray for La Grande then. Because it's a lot easier to put up a fight with a company that has a name, than with an anonymous hacker. Sure, you can block him, but you can't stop him. That's the problem. And like you just said, you're just as responsible if you don't try to catch him. La Grande could help.
And this is coming from a software engineer who loses money every time someone illegally copies my work. People's rights are far more important than a few dollars.
And isn't it a right that your software gets protected from illegal copying and cracking then? And this comes from a programmer who has not found a definitive way to protect programs with CD-Keys, epiration days and online registration. La Grande gives the hardware support that is supposed to make it uncrackable. Ok I'm a bit sceptic about that but...
All I'm asking for is: give it a chance. Me nor you have seen it in action and know exactly what it is capable of or not. That's why I do not applaud the news that Intel removes it from some chips. Maybe in a few years when it's introduced on every computer, nobody will want to go back to the time when you had to hack your own computer to see if it's safe. Maybe not...
Ever wonder why all those holes exist in MS? (Well maybe there are shitty programmers and maybe there are devious govt agents).
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram