Microsoft Preps 'Janus' Music Copy-Prevention Scheme 466
An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft is expected to unveil copy-protection software this summer that will for the first time give portable digital music players access to rented tunes from all-you-can-eat subscription services -- a development that some industry executives believe will shake up the online music business." Janus is the Roman god of doorways, gates, passages, preventing people from copying music, etc.
Are they kidding? (Score:5, Insightful)
Happy Trails!
Erick
Serious question (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Serious question (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Serious question (Score:4, Interesting)
A useful crack would be to strip the DRM off of someone else's files that you had downloaded. This only allows you to go through a lot of effort in order to distribute the files you obtained legally in the first place. It's not really useful enough to say that iTune's DRM has been "cracked."
I've got an easier crack; burn the tracks to cd and play those in another computer. Or if you want to get fancy, capture the stream from CoreAudio with something like Audio Hijack. These only lose you quality if you feel like reencoding them in something else lossy.
Re:Serious question (Score:5, Informative)
actually, i think someone did. there's also i think a windows/itunes app that captures the stream. but more importantly, the whole drm thing is moot. you can go
aac -> cd audio (for car, etc.) then go cd -> aac/mp3. the resulting aac/mp3 is drm free. (i kow becasue the mp3's play fine on my linux box as well as my ibook). and i haven't noticed a drop in quality from aac w/drm -> cd -> aac w/o drm. so the whole cracked scheme is not important. all it takes is a $.25 cd and a few minutes.
note: no, i did md5sum the two aac files, becasue they would of course be different. but, if someone has audio software to measure levels, etc., i'd be curious.
Re:Serious question (Score:5, Insightful)
Getting hacked would therefore come as no big surprise to Apple/Jobs. But when you add it up:
Unlimited burns + no expiration + multiple devices + multiple computers = Not worth the trouble.
The iTunes model is so open, there is little reason to hack it. Of those who would want to, you then have a subset of those with the skills to do so, and you end up with an insignificant number.
The new MS model, with an expiration date, screams for a hack. But then again, there are a lot of time limited software demos, and I don't suppose that anyone tries to hack those...
The hackers' end goal is probably not theft (Score:5, Insightful)
"Unlimited burns + no expiration + multiple devices + multiple computers = Not worth the trouble"
As you say, not much incentive to hack if you can do what you want with the downloads. Notice that this supports the theory that hacking DRM has nothing to do with "stealing" music; the real motivation is to defeat the crippling restrictions on usage.
Microsoft + expiration date + music drm = another hacker victory
Re:Serious question (Score:5, Insightful)
All it takes is one.
Re:Serious question (Score:5, Insightful)
But Jobs has a grasp of the whole DRM thing that Gates doesn't seem to be close to realizing.
If we had some DRM which REALLY freaking worked. I mean, actually was something that actually protected the rights of the digital media AND more importantly didn't annoy the end user/listener, then it wouldn't be hacked.
Jobs went as far as they felt they could go given existing practices and ended up with a good system, that doesn't annoy users, and that does make it non-trivial to pirate. Yes, you can do it, but it takes a few steps, and a little bit of knowledge. People are intrensically lazy, so aren't just going to do it the majority of the time.
(Also, do you have any Idea how many people out there *can't* figure out how to write a cd?)
Any whokoewho.. Just like parent piped, iTunes got it exactly right. It's a level of protection, and it makes you feel good about following it. BIG difference to the M$ approach.
M$: "Where do you want to go today...as long it's where we tell you."
The're trying to play some demigod rear guard by dictating how people live their lives on the computer. I see this Januas getting stompped faster then DeCSS.
Re:Serious question (Score:3, Insightful)
But the point about digital copying is that only one person has to crack it. After that it's just a question of distribution. Look at the warez scene - the big problem is finding distribution channels and staying one step ahead of the law (am I quoting t
Re:Are they kidding? (Score:5, Funny)
and the bettings good that the cracking program will be called Hugh allowing one to Hugh .....
Re:Are they kidding? (Score:3, Funny)
Moe: Hold on, I'll check (to crowd) Hugh Jass. Hey, I wanna Hugh Jass. Oh, someone check the men's room for a Hugh Jass.
(A man approaches Moe)
Hugh: Uh, I'm Hugh Jass
Moe: Telephone
(Moe Hands hugh the receiver)
Hugh: Hello, this is Hugh Jass
Bart: Uh, hi
Hugh: Who's this?
Bart: Bart Simpson
Hugh: What can I do for you, Bart?
Bart: Uh, look, I'll level with you, mister. This is a crank call that sorta backfired and I'd like t
Re:Are they kidding? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Are they kidding? (Score:4, Interesting)
This is the name of a Roman god - with Indo/Aryan origins. Interestingly, Janus was - literally - "two-faced".
TWO-FACED: Dictionary Entry and Meaning
Pronunciation: 'too`feyst
WordNet Dictionary
Definition: [adj] having two faces--one looking to the future and one to the past; "Janus the two-faced god"
[adj] marked by deliberate deceptiveness especially by pretending one set of feelings and acting under the influence of another;
"she was a deceitful scheming little thing"- Israel Zangwill;
"a double-dealing double agent";
"a double-faced infernal traitor and schemer"- W.M.Thackeray
Synonyms: ambidextrous, deceitful, dishonest, dishonorable, double-dealing, double-faced, double-tongued, duplicitous, faced, Janus-faced
Re:Are they kidding? (Score:4, Funny)
So it's written in Java, then?
Re:Are they kidding? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Are they kidding? (Score:5, Funny)
Think about the kind of people who are reading this right now...
Now picture them naked.
Ok, now think about what kind of sick, twisted, perverse people are actually going to take a good look at those kind of naked people and ask yourself, "Do any of those sick, twisted or perverse people work at my bank".
If the answer is no, then this might actually be a feasible plan...
Re:Are they kidding? (Score:4, Funny)
I've already hacked it. (Score:4, Interesting)
Step 2) Put rented song on mp3 player.
Step 3) Go to Radio $hack, buy an adapter cable to connected mp3 output back into PC.
Step 4) Record song from Sound Card's 'Line In' using a high-quality program like Goldwave [goldwave.com].
Step 5) Enjoy all the choonz you want for $10 / month.
Re:I've already hacked it. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, and this is where it goes 'wrong': recording a song non-digitally (analoge) isn't really good for the song's quality.
Re:I've already hacked it. (Score:3, Insightful)
True enough, but it didn't stop generations of people copying vinyl LPs onto tape. The quality doesn't have to be "perfect", just "good enough" for Joe Schmo. It's only those intent on piracy who will be peturbed about the degradation in quality.
Re:I've already hacked it. (Score:3, Insightful)
Neither is encoding a song into mp3 format, or transmitting it over FM radio. The thing is, most people don't care, if they can get it for free. The small percentage of people who do care will either pay the subscription fee, or find a way around the DRM on the digital side.
Re:I've already hacked it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Right. Because taking discrete samples of an analog wave and interpolating that data to approximate the missing data is always as good as the raw analog data. I'm not saying analog is flat-out superior, but I think it's a mistake to make the blanket statement that digital is better too.
you are right (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I've already hacked it. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I've already hacked it. (Score:3, Insightful)
Write a fake CD drive that captures data and writes it back to the hard disk in wav format instead of burning it to a CD.
It would be a *lot* faster.
Are they kidding? Yes... (Score:3, Funny)
History *will* repeat itself.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Pay for time limited, rental media? Has Circuit City's DIVX fiasco taught them nothing?
If there were a demand for such an item I can see them working on it but the media companies try these silly schemes that have no consumer interest. Naturally they'll end up somehow blaming P2P for this system's inevitable failure.
Yep, I dub the effort MSMusIVX!! (Score:5, Interesting)
TV subscriptions are one thing because most shows are transient, and you can record forever the ones you like. But a music subscription offers no similar benefits, only an ongoing cost and limitations on use (can you burn real CD's with a subscription service?)
Re:Yep, I dub the effort MSMusIVX!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Using actual
Downloaded file not much less "physical". (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:History *will* repeat itself.. (Score:3, Insightful)
+ Only available at Circuit City
+ Only on crappy, non-brandname players
+ Smaller movie library
+ All DIVX player play DVD, not all DVD players play DIVX - the standard was obvious.
In short, it was basically betamaxed out of existence. Besides, just because geeks hate the rental model doesn't mean Joe Sixpack
Re:History *will* repeat itself.. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:History *will* repeat itself.. (Score:5, Insightful)
An example would be:
user pays $20 / month for ANY 20 songs from the library. He picks his favorite 20 songs. A new artist comes out with a PHAT NEW TRACK that he MUST have.
He can either:
a) "return" or "expire" one of the tracks that he has oustanding
or
b) upgrade his subscription to $25 per month for any 40 songs.
I think they're trying to lock people into a subscription model because it keeps revenue streams alive (for the company) and it's [relatively] difficult for people to drop subscriptions. For example, if you had to choose between paying your internet bill or buying the latest and greatest X-PS4-Game-Box-Cube; you'll probably be more likely to pay your internet bill (or music bill in this case).
I'm not certain that's their idea, but it sounds like that's what the business plan is at this point.
It's kind of brilliant from a business standpoint, but let's just see if the market takes kindly to it.
Re:History *will* repeat itself.. (Score:4, Insightful)
These situations are almost always bound to fail, because the law of supply and demand is being ignored. If there is no demand for your product (well, except for 5 Record Companies), and there are hundreds of millions of people all the world that want to see your product fail... what does that say?
It says to me that Microsoft (which isn't a stupid company, no matter what you personally think) is getting paid a LOT of money to give something to the Record Companies that they can stuff down the throats of hundreds of millions of people, whether they like it or not.
Kinda sounds like the "pop music" concept, doesn't it? This means it may just work...
Divx, anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
More on Janus (Score:5, Funny)
Re:More on Janus (Score:2)
and it also looks like j-anus (Score:2)
Re:More on Janus (Score:2)
Re:More on Janus (Score:3, Informative)
" Janus head is a popular phrase for deception, that is, when action does not match speech."
From: Wikipedia [wikipedia.org].
Same ol' Same ol' - confusion (Score:5, Insightful)
So to start with, you'll have to get a different player that supports this "secure clock". Then you have these issues:
Music service executives said they were still in negotiations with record labels over how to treat the new technology. Allowing people to bring thousands of songs at a time to portable players may wind up costing more than the $10 a month that most subscription services charge today, the executives said.
Well that's certainly going to help - keep up the level of confusuin with different rate plans based on what you might want to do.
Nevertheless, some music services are eager to drive more consumers to subscription plans, since per-song download stores have tiny or even nonexistent profit margins.
Because what always excites the consumer is helping a company make more money.
I would think artists would not be too fond of subscription services - they must get quite a bit less (if anything?) from such services. As someone who wants to help out an artist why would I want to support a subscription services? Seems like just another refined means of ripping off people who make the music.
Next Slashdot poll... (Score:2)
Re:Next Slashdot poll... (Score:2)
what will happen (Score:3, Funny)
=)
e.
Re:what will happen (Score:3, Insightful)
An MS product named after a two-faced god. (Score:2, Funny)
When will they learn.... (Score:4, Insightful)
"Making bits uncopyable is like making water un-wet." -- Bruce S.
Re:When will they learn.... (Score:5, Insightful)
=)
Re:When will they learn.... (Score:5, Funny)
Copy protection (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, right.
I remember those things from the 80s - never stopped C64 game sharing.
"Hacker-resistant" (Score:2)
some people never learn
Pricing? (Score:3, Insightful)
On a side note, unless they find a way to copy-protect sound waves, they will never be able to defeat copy protections. You can always play the song and record it in real time on an analog source.
Re:Pricing? (Score:2)
unless you control the bios and have software control of sound cards, etc. what if you make it playable ONLY in players, or only out of certain soundcards, or, you have an adapter, or you have a slightly different earpiece plugin. looking at microsoft's activation schemes in the past ocuple of years, it doesn't sound to far fetched. or, what if you added to the analog source a note beyond human hearing, but noticable by the OS
rented tunes (Score:2)
"Fans of portable players could then pay as little as $10 a month for ongoing access to hundreds of thousands of songs, instead of buying song downloads one at a time for about a dollar apiece."
Dammit (Score:2, Interesting)
One Question (Score:5, Funny)
I could be wrong, and if I am I'll eat a bug, but (Score:3, Insightful)
Reminds me of something else... (Score:5, Interesting)
The only downer is the fact that if you lose the licenses you're screwed.
Also worked on my MP3-player so I can take the song running.
The interesting note is I charged the song. So it ended up being 99c. This was the only charge for the month on my credit card. However, my balance for the month was zero! Wal-Mart had given me a 'Small Balance Credit' which I assume is that it's probably less of a loss (99c) then some transaction fee (several dollors) from the credit card company.
So I guess you get twelve free songs a year if you handle this correctly!
I don't want to rent...I want to OWN.
Re:Reminds me of something else... (Score:3, Informative)
"The only downer is the fact that if you lose the licenses you're screwed."
Start Media Player. Pull down the Tools menu, then select License Management. Choose Back Up now.
Tada. You're no more screwed than anyone else who doesn't backup.
Re:Reminds me of something else... (Score:3, Funny)
Dude, Wal-Mart is to cool as Iraq is to WMDs.
There's Irony in there naming... (Score:5, Funny)
Society of Janus is a San Francisco based BDSM education/support group...
know what it is exactly you're consenting to when you click accept on EULA.
Re:There's Irony in there naming... (Score:2)
Society of Janus [soj.org]
BDRM! (Score:3, Funny)
No no no, it's BDRM: bondage/dominance/rights-masochism.
Only buy this if you enjoy watching your rights suffer!
Janus? (Score:5, Funny)
"Launch project Janus!"
"You'll never get away with this!"
"I already have, Bond! Within minutes, the world will have no choice but to bow to my demands... or face the consequences."
"You fiend!"
Re:Janus? (Score:2)
Actually, it's a diabolical secret plot to genetically engineer the perfect Judge. [imdb.com] That Janus project failed when it produced Sylvester Stallone and Armand Assante. If only Microsoft's effort would meet the same fate, with Rob Schnieder as a sidekick.
ooooh wonderful (Score:2)
Perfect. (Score:5, Insightful)
Perfect.
What the hell... (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure, I can see rented videos...But rented music? Who the heck rents music?
Little digital audio player with Microsoft 'Janus' technology.... Meet my digital-in connector =D
(or if they don't have digital out (which sucks and I wouldn't buy it anyway) then analog-in works fine too...)
Hundreds of thousands of songs! For 10$! Can't beat the price. W00t!
These guys are REALLY really dumb.
yeah. right. (Score:2, Funny)
Like that water-resistant watch I used to have.
It wasn't water-proof
kulakovich
Seems like a strange thing to name a DRM scheme. (Score:5, Insightful)
So says Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]
How Fitting (Score:2)
Is that Janus, as in the two-faced?
What an interesting choice of names. I don't know what aspect of the project they are refering to though. Two-faced because they pretend to help customers while back-stabbing their fair-use?
Two-faced because they will sell this to media providers and then act suprised when it is hacked?
Or two-faced just because of the company it came out of?
Maybe all three? Time will tell.
Why Rent When You Can Own? (Score:5, Insightful)
1) I don't want to "rent" my music. I want to buy.
2) I don't want my music in crappy WMA format.
3) The tinfoil hat wearer in me sees this as a way for the music/software industries to indoctrinate the next generation of consumers with the idea that you don't "own" anything.
As the sidebar in the article says "If fans of iPod-like devices can be convinced to drop the idea of owning song files, they could shift to paying a subscription fee for ongoing access
Pass.
iPod owners don't rent from the iTMS. (Score:3, Insightful)
iPod owners don't rent their music. Once you purchase a song from the iTMS you own that track and can listen to it forever on up to three PC's and an unlimited number of iPods. If Microsoft is looking to the success of iTunes and the iTMS as justification for their DRM rental scheme they are going to be sorely dissapo
Re:Why Rent When You Can Own? (Score:5, Insightful)
The record companies are sitting on a goldmine that they don't even recognize. For example, I have spent 15 years looking for a CD of Camel's album, the Snow Goose. I had a cassette copy from a used record I borrowed from a friend; I finally found my used CD copy a few months ago. How on earth does it help the RIAA that I had to search for 15 years to get a legal copy of this album? And I was lucky I found it used for $9 (Canadian) rather than a new $40 import.
These record companies have already spent the money to record and master these CD; why should it ever go out of print? Surely making $5 is better than nothing; or do they really think I'll buy the latest American Idol CD they are expensively promoting instead?
High Cost of DRM... (Score:5, Insightful)
Before MP3s were Satan, I had a stereo system (hi-fi for us old folks) that could easily "rip" CDs, records, or tapes to cheap portable media (blank tapes). It didn't seem to be an issue then...
I would actually be very interested in an all-you-can-eat music subscription, provided it gave me files in the MP3 format. I have an MP3 player in my house, office, car, and person, but I don't have a Janus player anywhere!
Stop spending all your money trying to stop me from sharing stuff, just sell me stuff I want.
Re:High Cost of DRM... (Score:2)
Never. It's mathematically certain that any copy-protection scheme can be hacked. As soon as it is worth the money to hack it, it will be. And if it isn't worth the money to hack it, it wasn't worth the money to develop it in the first place. So in the end, you save nothing on pirated items.
Hmmm (Score:2)
Oh c'mon, I'm sure that if Pheo-Firebi-Firefox gets a request to change their name due to previous claim, why not MS? Oh, right.
As a Canadian... (Score:3, Insightful)
Come on, people. (Score:5, Insightful)
File this under "Too little; too late". If this was here 10 years ago it would have ruled the market, even 2 years ago before iPod/iTunes made legitimate music buying easy* it would have had a chance. Now it's just another unwanted product; at best a footnote in a future history book.
* I'm thinking specifically of when the iTunes Music Store came to Windows. To head off the 'no ogg/Linux support, so no business from me!' posts, that most assuredly applies to this new product as well and is pointless in a comparison.
So how are we calling the cracking project? (Score:2)
Or maybe project Zeus, with lightning being the metaphor to the elapsed time between the release of software supporting Janus and a hack/crack.
Guaranteed hard-failure of player? (Score:5, Insightful)
So then - what happens when the power for this embedded secure-clock runs out? Your player needs to go in for repair, as I doubt the "secure clock" is user-servicable.
Or, perahps the chip just counts up as long as it has power. So if you only use it now and then you might be able to keep the song-embers alive for years as you slow time to the device.
I guess it won't matter since the system will be cracked before it becomes an issue, but it's kind of like buying a car with a pre-wired explosive charge under the hood set to go off in severeal years. "Not to worry!" the salesman says, "You'll have a different car in seven years anyway!".
Fits MS perfectly (Score:5, Insightful)
There goes our project's name (Score:2)
I've been working for a year in a project to analyze legacy databases from my university and make predictions from them. I tought a good name was Janus, the two-faced god who looks to the past and to the future simultaneously.
Subscription Models suck.. (Score:5, Insightful)
well id never get a subscription to drive my errr ummm car.... or live in my apartment..
The general public is used to subscriptions
*we* may refuse
Re:Subscription Models suck.. (Score:4, Insightful)
How about Janis? (Score:5, Informative)
Digital Music Library (Score:4, Interesting)
a telling quote (Score:4, Insightful)
This is why online music purchasing is in such a sad state: it's because of people like this guy. He and others believe they can tell consumers (not "customers," not even "people," but "consumers") that the DRM widget du jour really is what they want when they look to buy music online. Screw what their customers actually ask for, and never mind that positive shopping experiences and word-of-mouth advertising are every bit as important as the profit made on any one purchase; it's obviously far better to license some new technology almost guaranteed to be broken within three months, shove it down the throats of unwilling customers, and pass on the costs.
Guess what, pal. We don't want a "new type of experience," or people "changing attitudes towards what music really is" (whatever that even means). Just offer us unencumbered MP3s at a buck a song, and watch people flock to your service. Is that so hard to understand?
Online music done right... (Score:4, Informative)
The other awesome thing about that site is the ability to selecte your download format from WMA, MP3, OGG, FLAC, etc, plus the particular quality settings. For most downloads the audio is converted on the fly from a high quality archive (~400kbps), and for others it is actually converted directly from the CD-DA source. In "Advanced Mode", it's almost equivalent to selecting your command-line switches for the transcoder of your choice!
I'm in no way affiliated with these guys, but I love their service. It's actually faster and more reliable for me to download music from these guys than it is to try and venture out onto the P2P networks. Heck, for quality 7 OGG music, I'm paying roughly $0.02 CAD/minute. Plus, they let you pay with PayPal, so it's not like your sending your credit card info to some random Russians.
Re:Online music done right... (Score:3, Insightful)
Its a russian website, leveraging questionable copyright principles, with no legal presence in north america.
I'm sorry to say that I would never trust them with my credit card, and I'd be worried about any time of persistent connection between my computer and their website. I hope I'm wrong and its a legitimate attempt at a new online business model, but I've seen enough SPAM and ebay and paypal scams to be very nervous about this proposition.
I'd like to quote... (Score:3, Insightful)
original project name was changed... (Score:5, Funny)
Absolutely Uncrackable DRM: Here's How (Score:5, Funny)
If more record companies would simply *NOT RELEASE* music, there would be nothing to crack. In fact, I'd urge record companies to examine this carefully. Take Janet Jackson, for example. If they *refused to release* 'Damita Jo' -- or, better yet, refused to record it -- there would be nothing to crack, nothing to leak, and no filesharing problem.
The fact that record companies have recorded Damita Jo and actually released it indicates (to me, at least) that the record companies are as complicit in the problem as anyone else.
My two cents.
They don't realize: in order to be successful... (Score:3, Insightful)
Most won't use this.. and I'd be surprised at those who do. Who in their right mind wants to be restricted like this?
Just putting fingers in the dyke (Score:3, Insightful)
Just another work-around that ignores the underlying problem! The reason why these stores have nonexistent profit margins is because the Music Labels are taking 99% - 100% of the song price. And, as we all know, it's not because most of it is going to the artist.
The issues of song pricing and profit margin on a pay-per-download scheme is never going to be resolved in a way that benefits consumer and provider (i.e. music download service) until the greedy middleman of the RIAA is taken out of the picture.
Even if you agree with the "plight" of the music industry and the fact that they do make upfront expenditures on artists and need to reclaim those funds plus return on investment (hey this is still America, no one is investing money with no expectation of something in return) - there comes a point when enough is enough. Just because they took a chance and invested $2M in Britney Spears to start her career hardly justifies taking in 75% of her music profits until the end of time. (note: figures are made up, but you get the picture, I'm just too lazy to find the real numbers)
Even the problem of recovering upfront investments (much of which is lost on artists who do not take off) would be moot if the music industry would stop the practice of paying these fledgling artists millions upfront and just provide them the tools to get their careers started, laying the burden of success on the would-be artists, and then if they fail the company is out a couple dozen thousand instead of half a million.
Forcing end-users into subscription service plans creates waste and bloated pricing (just look at the cable industry's package plans) and is a finger-in-the-dyke solution, when really the problem is miles upstream.
Stop the bashing; this is a great idea! (Score:4, Interesting)
Are you kidding me? You're going to give me anytime, anywhere access to over 400,000 songs for $10/month, and you complain? Man, I wish Apple would do this, because I would certainly pay for the service to use with my iPod. These subscriptions are marginally useful to a small group of people in their current form (work on CPU only). Give me a $10 subscription that I can use on my iPod, and I'll sign up tomorrow.
Who cares if it's DRM. It's a great value, and the type of service we've all been anticipating for many years. I hope Apple beats 'em to the punch!
Re:Really? (Score:3, Insightful)
Honestly, I just don't get it. Microsoft is working on a new plan will let MS Windows users who buy a supported MP3 player have anytime/ anywhere access to all the music in their library. Want to listen to the new Britney Spears album, but don
Coolest thing ever! (Score:4, Insightful)
The rent vs. buy stuff seems like BS to me. It's like saying that HBO is worthless because you don't get access forever. Or people won't be willing to watch movies in a theater, because they don't actually end up owning anything. How many of you who are scoffing at this idea are Netflix subscribers?
I'll bet that the majority of CDs are listed to for a short time, and then filed away. So why clutter up your life with CDs that you won't listen to? And of course buying and renting music are not mutually exclusive, just as you can (gasp) rent DVDs and also buy them. Subscribing to a rental service doesn't prohibit you from also buying anything you want to listen to long-term.
OK Slashdotters, bring it on
Re:Completely off topic (Score:3, Funny)
Hugh.
And Microsoft's copy protection will soon look like the goat guy.