BBC iplayer
 

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
.. .
In article .com,
wrote:

Ah! IIRC one of the of the pro-CRT diehards I've already plonked for
peddling pseudo-science ... You're probably wasting your time ...

It's an unknown effect, and no matter how many times
you multiply the unknown, it's still unknown.

Quite. Doing an analysis for one country, you have at least two unknowns -
the national bias, and the DRM effect, but only one set of stats to obtain a
correlation. Doing it for two, you have at least three unknowns, but only
two sets of stats. And so on. You will always have less sets of stats than
you have unknowns.

What would be needed to
compare systems would be to transmit the *same* programme to the *same*
viewers using different systems.

Exactly.

But I think the more important point is who is doing the 'research', and
what their motives are. Like the so-callerd 'scientists' paid for by the
tobacco industry to 'research' the effects of tobacco on health, and those
paid for by the oil industry to 'research' global warming, the fact that
such people consistently publish 'results' that run counter to more
independently funded scientific research suggests that 'research' funded by
a vested interest can never be entirely trusted. He who pays the piper
calls the tune.

The recording industry has a history of moaning about 'illegal' copying,
much of which would be more accurately described as 'fair use' and is only
illegal because the industry has had the best politicians that money can buy
to have made it so. In the past thay have contrived similar 'evidence' in
attempts to ban the following technologies: reel-to-reel tape recorders,
audio cassette, DAT, minidisk, VHS, BETA, music videos, etc. I f we'd
listened to them in the past we would never have had all these, and probably
more, in our homes. I see no reason to start listening to their whining
now.

BBC iplayer
 

In article , Java Jive wrote:
But I think the more important point is who is doing the 'research', and
what their motives are. *Like the so-callerd 'scientists' paid for by the
tobacco industry to 'research' *the effects of tobacco on health, and those
paid for by the oil industry to 'research' global warming, the fact that
such people consistently publish 'results' that run counter to more
independently funded scientific research suggests that 'research' funded by
a vested interest can never be entirely trusted. *He who pays the piper
calls the tune.

I'm old enough to remember some of the crazy schemes that were proposed to
prevent tape copying forty years ago, mostly involving high frequency signals
of some sort superimposed on the programme material, with the intention that
it would heterodyne with the HF bias signal in the tape recorder and make the
recording unusable. Anybody who though this would have the slightest chance
of working couldn't have heard of filters, and probably didn't know that the
HF bias signals in different recorders ran at widely different frequencies
depending on design, mostly above 100kHz.

The situation I found it easiest to envisage was of expensive but ignorant
executives with no idea how any of the technology over which they presided
actually worked being conned by unscrupulous "researchers" who realised there
was a gravy train to be ridden as long as they could maintain a regular
supply of carefully written reports that would keep their bosses believing
the nonsense and shelling out the money for more. I reckoned they deserved
each other. On the other hand I also reckon we deserve sensibly priced
audiovisual products that always work.

Rod.

BBC iplayer
 

On 24 Aug, 22:52, Roderick Stewart
wrote:
In article .com,

wrote:
Any larger scale statistical sampling is going to be a multiple of that
same situation, as long as all copies of a given title in any given
country either have, or don't have, DRM.

The "large scale" is in terms of number of countries, and number of
titles. Each title+country combination is one data point.

If each "data point" tells us nothing, lots of the same kind of data point
will tell us lots of nothing. How is that better?

So, if a dice is loaded, one throw will tell you nothing (true enough)
therefore 1000 throws will also tell you nothing?!

Cheers,
David.

BBC iplayer
 

On 25 Aug, 13:07, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

I'm old enough to remember some of the crazy schemes that were proposed to
prevent tape copying forty years ago, mostly involving high frequency signals
of some sort superimposed on the programme material, with the intention that
it would heterodyne with the HF bias signal in the tape recorder and make the
recording unusable. Anybody who though this would have the slightest chance
of working couldn't have heard of filters, and probably didn't know that the
HF bias signals in different recorders ran at widely different frequencies
depending on design, mostly above 100kHz.

The old patents on this reveal them solving that problem and several
others. In a market where 50%+ of the population bought "music
centres" with no where to easily insert a filter, that didn't matter
either.

There were two insurmountable problems: Firstly, the frequencies which
actually "worked" were audible to many people. Secondly (as if the
first point wasn't bad enough) they were still too high to be
reproduced reliably by many record and cassette machines of the era.

Cheers,
David.

BBC iplayer
 

In article .com,
wrote:
I'm old enough to remember some of the crazy schemes that were proposed to
prevent tape copying forty years ago, mostly involving high frequency signals
of some sort superimposed on the programme material, with the intention that
it would heterodyne with the HF bias signal in the tape recorder and make the
recording unusable. Anybody who though this would have the slightest chance
of working couldn't have heard of filters, and probably didn't know that the
HF bias signals in different recorders ran at widely different frequencies
depending on design, mostly above 100kHz.

The old patents on this reveal them solving that problem and several
others.

Funny that real life didn't reveal them solving the problems, even if they did
manage to solve them on paper. I challenge *anyone* to name *any* published
recording produced at *any* time that carries *any* system that makes it possible
to listen to the recording but not copy it.

In a market where 50%+ of the population bought "music
centres" with no where to easily insert a filter, that didn't matter
either.

The best systems can only stop the casual technically ignorant punters, not the
determined large-scale pirates, and many those who don't know how to make copies
themselves probably know somebody who does.

There were two insurmountable problems: Firstly, the frequencies which
actually "worked" were audible to many people. Secondly (as if the
first point wasn't bad enough) they were still too high to be
reproduced reliably by many record and cassette machines of the era.

In other words, it didn't work, it never could, and it never will.

Rod.

BBC iplayer
 

In article om,
wrote:
Any larger scale statistical sampling is going to be a multiple of that
same situation, as long as all copies of a given title in any given
country either have, or don't have, DRM.

The "large scale" is in terms of number of countries, and number of
titles. Each title+country combination is one data point.

If each "data point" tells us nothing, lots of the same kind of data point
will tell us lots of nothing. How is that better?

So, if a dice is loaded, one throw will tell you nothing (true enough)
therefore 1000 throws will also tell you nothing?!

Bad example. In the case of DRM used in all copies of a CD sold in an entire
country, the "loading" corresponds 100% with something else, so it isn't
possible to separate the two effects no matter how many times we do the test.

Rod.

BBC iplayer
 

On 2007-08-25, wrote:
On 25 Aug, 13:07, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

I'm old enough to remember some of the crazy schemes that were proposed to
prevent tape copying forty years ago, mostly involving high frequency signals
of some sort superimposed on the programme material, with the intention that
it would heterodyne with the HF bias signal in the tape recorder and make the
recording unusable. Anybody who though this would have the slightest chance
of working couldn't have heard of filters, and probably didn't know that the
HF bias signals in different recorders ran at widely different frequencies
depending on design, mostly above 100kHz.

The old patents on this reveal them solving that problem and several
others. In a market where 50%+ of the population bought "music
centres" with no where to easily insert a filter, that didn't matter
either.

There were two insurmountable problems: Firstly, the frequencies which
actually "worked" were audible to many people. Secondly (as if the
first point wasn't bad enough) they were still too high to be
reproduced reliably by many record and cassette machines of the era.

Uhm, so they "solved" the problem of filters by using a frequency
which couldn't be filtered out, and so, by necessity, was audible?

Great solution.

--
David Taylor

BBC iplayer
 

In article , David Taylor
wrote:


Uhm, so they "solved" the problem of filters by using a frequency which
couldn't be filtered out, and so, by necessity, was audible?

Bit like the modern "solutions" which inconvenience or annoy ordinary
domestic consumers, but don't stop professional pirates.

IIRC last month's 'Spectrum' (IEEE mag) had an item on how some companies
were abandoning DRM since it simply got in the way of legitimate use, and
therefore damaged sales. In practice, if you annoy potential customers you
reduce their willingness to buy, and increase their willingness to make
copies from elsewhere. As a supplier, this means you shoot yourself in the
foot by imposing daft 'protection' schemes.

So for all the aggressive talk amongst 'media companies' about DRM and
copy-protection the jury is now coming in, and the verdict seems to be,
"no". As could easily be predicted given the history of the topic.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html

BBC iplayer
 

Exactly. If you are going to treat legitimate and non-legitimate users
alike, you increase the probability that after a while the legitimate ones
start to think: "Hey, I'm being treated like a criminal anyway, so why not
do it for real?"

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , David Taylor
wrote:

In practice, if you annoy potential customers you
reduce their willingness to buy, and increase their willingness to make
copies from elsewhere.