Translation of Macrovision Response to Jobs on DRM 284
BoboB-69 writes "Daring Fireball has posted a humorous, and accurate PR-speak to Plain English translation of Macrovision's CEO's response to Steve Jobs' Open Letter on DRM. Highly recommended reading for slashdotters everywhere."
that's beautifully worded (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:that's beautifully worded (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:that's beautifully worded (Score:5, Funny)
Because then you'd understand them.
Re:that's beautifully worded (Score:5, Insightful)
We're going to see a lot more of this kind of misdirection now that the first serious cracks in the DRM-club's armor. Major players in the production and delivery of content are starting to actually question the wisdom of DRM. Guys like Steve Jobs are not Defective by Design or Freeculture.org, but important bricks in the wall that has kept DRM the default and a more sane approach to copyright out of the discussion entirely.
I'm afraid that the battle over DRM is about to morph from a guerilla action to mutually assured detruction, and the Copyright Industry may prefer the latter in the end to actually sitting down with their enemy (the customers) and coming up with a reasonable solution.
Re:that's beautifully worded (Score:4, Insightful)
The likely real world outcome of drm is that a bunch of time and money ends up being wasted. People won't put up with doomsday scenarios where they can't sing Happy Birthday(and get away with it like you can now) and laws will be changed.
People don't care about the drm on dvd's; lots of people are going to be really pissed off with the coming 'not on that screen' drm.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, with or without hair?
This scares me, because one of my favorite singers, Andrea Corr, has a solo album coming out this year, and rumor has it that the music execs want to make her "the next J-Lo". Which scares fans because most of them can't stand J-Lo.
Besides, Andrea doesn't have the booty to be "the next J-Lo."
But Andrea looks good with hair and probably wouldn't look good without it.
So any cloning has to be done leaving in the genes for hair.
As for the "voice-destroying virus", that's
Re:that's beautifully worded (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, mostly.
I'm not really against DRM per se, but I am against how it's currently implemented.
In my opinion, if DRM existed just to prevent me from sharing my content with somebody else, that would be OK with me. As long as it lets me format-shift it to any device or future device, make self-destrutable copies for a friend that blows itself up, say, 3 days after being watched (like lending a DVD), and generally stays out of my way, I'm fine with it.
Unfortunately, they can't figure out how to do that, so instead they give us draconian content locking.
But what I _do_ agree with is that companies are now, for the first times, starting to realize it's not going to work.
Who remembers SDMI? The Secure Digital Music Initiative was created right about the time the labels sued (unsuccessfully) to have the Rio pulled from the market. It was a consortium of all the big companies--MSFT, SONY, etc. Probably no apple back then, tho--and they took like 18 months to come out with this way to "protect" music and, I swear to god, it was broken in like days.
The reason I bring this up are two fold:
1. It was the first crack at DRM and the first time DRM was cracked.
2. Maybe if it hadn't been cracked, things would be marginally better now. Just a thought, but maybe we'd have a single standard.
Point one is significant because every time DRM has failed the makers say "We've learned from our mistakes, wait until you see the NEXT version"
And now, finally, after hearing these promises from the likes of Macrovision, the industry has FINALLY started to get fed-up. When their hundreds of millions spent on securing HD content was just evaporated in the first few months of comming to market I swear you could just smell 1000 execs puking in their mouths.
The DRM battle has been a horrible experience for both consumers and content companies. The companies, each go around, get their hopes up. They're psyched to go out drinking. They slap hands, talking about all the bitches they'll pick up. All the fun they'll have. They change their shirt 4 times and use a can of Pomade in their hair. But every single time, without fail, they wake with a serious fucking hangover.
Meanwhile, Macrovision and the ilk already collected their huge development and licensing fees. To hell with the fact that what they produced doesn't actually _work_.
It would really be funny to watch the content companies in this self-destructive behavior if it wasn't such a shitty deal for consumers.
Re:that's beautifully worded (Score:4, Interesting)
I think Steve Jobs actually did a good job of pointing out the problem with DRM. DRM can never work unless you require the device to be networked so that it can check back with some central server for the key (and even then that's not infallible, just a bigger challenge). Without that, you HAVE to put the key to unlock the content right on the media and the player has to know how to find and use that key. This is true for DVDs and DVD-HD, protected CDs... it's inherent in the nature of the produce. Content that can't be viewed is useless to the consumer, so the device has to know how to play the content. Somebody will ALWAYS be able to crack any DRM scheme no matter how sophisticated, in less time and at less cost than was put into developing the scheme.
Every version of Macrovision has been cracked in a fairly short period of time. DVD encryption was cracked. DVD-HD hasn't been fully cracked, but enough to allow unprotected copies of HD DVDs to already exist.
This shouldn't be a moral discussion, it should be a practical one. So far, CEOs have been gullible enough to be believe Macrovision and other companies' claims that they can "protect" content. They can't, but they've made a lot of money by convincing people that they can, but unfortunately, that's all starting to unravel.
The funniest thing about Macrovision's letter is the suggestion that Macrovision can "help" Apple. Apple, despite it's public stance, has done as good a job as anybody at implementing DRM. Yes, you can get around it, but at least they evolve their DRM whenever somebody cracks it because there are actually implications to not doing so... unlike Macrovision who is still raking in gobs of money for protection schemes that have long since been cracked.
Re:that's beautifully worded (Score:4, Funny)
That's all there is to it, really.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The people that advertise by MySpace, YouTube or any other social site won't need to sign with a label so much. Usually it's the "replacements" that change how things are done, not the "old guard". I can see the transition taking a long time because the old guard often has to just die out or fade away, but revolutionary changes are possible too.
I'm afraid that the battle over DRM is about to morph from a guerilla ac
Re: (Score:2)
Then I picture some guy in a suit hitting a kid with his breifcase yelling "give me my money" and a cop who was whistling stopping and says "stop, sir do you need help with that?" and t
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Here's my reasonable solution: The industry allows me to use their product in whatever personal way I see fit, like I can with a standard audio CD today, and I'll buy their product.
It seems simple but the industry wont agree to it. I think the
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Here's another nice one:
Global Health Chief to Leave Gates Foundation
By Rick Weiss
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 14, 2005; Page A02
Richard D. Klausner, global health director for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and former chief of the National Cancer Institute, said yesterday that he will leave the Seattle foundation Dec. 31 to start a new venture.
Klausner said his decision to resign has "absolut
Rating (Score:2)
You know you've been playing too much NetHack when (Score:4, Funny)
Great.... (Score:5, Insightful)
CEO: "We are not going to lay off 500 workers."
English: "We are going to lay off 510 workers. Or 490. Just not 500."
Its all about making you FEEL a message instead of actually hearing and understanding the words. (They want to imply a very positive message, without ACTUALLY lying.)
Re:Great.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Thanks to us, he saw the great wisdom of Software development and how a proper team will lead his company from Stone Age to World Domination.
In conclusion, one week later (or maybe more, but less than a month later) the department was closed, everybody fired and the software development was outsourced to a specialised development house in India: that would would bring to the company even more flexibility and satisfaction for a cheaper price than our brilliant team could ever provide, but the CEO has to thank us for all this new wisdom.
Re:Great.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Worked for a small company of about 11 people - an IBM Series 1 VAR and PC VAD.
CEO brought in a new guy. Held a party. Told us everything was great - company profitable. The new guy was going to be CEO, the old CEO was going to be Chairman of the Board.
A week later, they fired six of the 11 people (not including me - they sent me home that afternoon to avoid the bloodshed).
Week later, the new CEO moved on to Honeywell.
A couple months later, I moved on, having seen the writing on the wall. And that was after he'd sent me back to Atlanta to go through IBM PC tech school. I came back, new job waiting for me, I reported on my experience at the IBM school - and then, "Oh, by the way, I'm quitting!"
He offered me a significant raise to stay on.
Yeah, right, asshole CEO. Sayonara!
Anybody who believes anything a manager says is seriously naive.
The icing on the cake is that this guy got his MBA on a thesis about "employee relations" - and he was one of the biggest assholes I ever worked for in any company. I mean, not just because he fired everybody. I mean, he was a SERIOUS asshole in normal conversation. Everybody at the company couldn't stand him.
Re: (Score:2)
I was really glad I'd just swallowed my beverage before reading that, because a 24" screen makes for a pretty large spewing target.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Problem is, it's the truest statement in his whole screed.
Fairplay's rules are DRM, well maintained and reasonably implemented.
Before flaming, I plead "truest", not "true": people pay for iTMS content, to the extent that they do, because if you have to crack Fairplay to do what you want to do with the music, you're behaving either criminally or idiotically (i.e. if you want to play it on something besides iTunes or an iPod, wtf did you buy at iTMS in the first place?) -- and thus iTMS rules... the DRMed m
Re:Great.... (Score:5, Funny)
I like this blurb best (Score:5, Insightful)
So, piracy will go away when DRM-protected legitimate content is available for free, from many sources, comes in many formats, can be copied without restrictions, and works on many devices. Brilliant! We are finally on the same page. Now get working on that.
Re:I like this blurb best (Score:4, Interesting)
An online store can be much easier and more convenient than tracking down music on the current P2P networks. More than enough to make up for the inconvenience of having to enter credit card details, and paying a few cents per song (or per-month).
Re:I like this blurb best (Score:4, Interesting)
They pay for ACCESS to music - whether that is going to a club and paying for access to a band, or buying a phonograph record when there were no cassette radio recorders, or buying CDs when there were no P2P systems or legal downloads.
That's exactly why Apple's iTunes took off. It's a hell of a lot easier than:
1) Install P2P software (assuming the user even has a clue about what it is and where to get it.)
2) Read ridiculously bad documentation on how to use it - assuming said documentation even exists.
3) Search for content.
4) Out of a thousand search results, find one that actually currently exists and can be accessed.
5) Get in queue behind 300 other people for the file.
6) Wait six days to become number 1 in queue.
7) Discover all sources of the file have shut off their machines or stopped providing the file. Bittorrent is notorious for this! Just try to find a seeder 24 hours after a file has been posted! It's over - you're late - you lose!
8) OR discover file is a virus-ridden phoney that hoses your machine. I've had two clients with this problem from Limewire - somebody via Limewire took over their machine, loaded it up with crap files full of trojans, and now their machine is moving like molasses because they're serving these files up to everyone else on the Limewire network.
8) Go back to step 1 or 3, depending on whether your machine still works.
9) Rinse and repeat with some other P2P system.
I've used them, don't get me wrong, but compared to legal downloads, they are a frikkin' nightmare designed by "frikkin idiots" (to use Dr. Evil's term).
It's no surprise that, according to most studies, P2P has little effect on CD sales, because the only people who would use those things are people who simply can't or wouldn't buy CDs anyway.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Exactly. That's pretty much the gist of what I wrote in response [indessed.com] to Amoroso's letter:
Reasonable, consistent, and transparent DRM
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
i would say thats not even necessary.
imho most important is convertibility. so whenever a new format comes available you should be able to convert it to the new media yourself. not being forced to re buy or keep "antique" hardware players just to see a movie/song/album you bought these days again in say 10 or 20 years.
since this is the crap that the content industry wants to make us believe all the time we don't buy a physical product but the license to "consume the content".
if that w
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
that's the point, the media companies don't want you to have these "privileges"
Re: (Score:2)
and how the hell are you supposed to lend and album to a friend who wants to listen to it? or bring an album to a party? like generations did before with vinyl and cd's ?
They've been working hard to stop you from doing that for years. In the future, you'll have a chip in your head that will generate noise over any music who's RFID isn't recognized in your monthly listening-right bill.
... bring an album to a party? That's unauthorized public use man! That's, like, a crime! It's like stealing! no, not stealing... murder! No, rape and murder... of a kid, no, kids! With racial slurs making it a hate crime too!
Google language tools. (Score:5, Funny)
Dream the impossible dream (Score:5, Interesting)
Until that time, I am forced to live in a world where I can listen to an MP3 file at home on 'Player A'. I can also take and use 'Player A' in my car, round a friend's house (and let them listen!), whilst shopping, on the train, plane etc., but heaven forbid I should try and copy or move my MP3 file from 'Player A' to my in-car 'Player B' which is designed to be operated whilst driving, unlike player A which is about as big as a small box of matches and is bloody dangerous to fiddle with whilst on the move.
Just go DRM Free. (Score:3, Insightful)
If I could implant all my media devices with a unique-to-me identifier and then transfer any content I have paid for *from any source* to any of my devices then I'd be happy with such DRM. Trouble is, this implies all companies with a vested interest in DRM cooperating and the system actually working.
It's not just impossible, it's an undesirable loss of control. For any DRM to work you have to surrender your ability to copy files. Each and every time you try, the DRM would have to check and grant you p
Re: (Score:2)
So would I.
Trouble is, one of those devices is my Linux desktop, and I currently play all my media with mplayer and other similar programs. I would accept DRM that these could handle, as long as you realize that this automatically means that I can decrypt it out of the DRM anyway.
And no, no proprietary forks of mplayer.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
indeed, but not as dangerous as stealing from the record industry and macrovision at the same time by not using DRM'd media. Sure you might end up in a horrific MV accident, but there's your soul to think about to, have you thought abou
So... Cable TV? (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't mind Google, because if they ever start being obnoxious in their search ads, I can easily switch to some other search engine, or even attempt to build one myself.
What you're talking about implies a lot of industry cooperation, which also implies that there'd be a monopoly on this service. Which means it would be overpriced and under-featured. They'd arbitrarily move normal content to "premium", and you wouldn't be
Re: (Score:2)
What you are describing is a storage and distribution scheme, and a very robust one, too. So robust, in fact, that it would still work in the world without any kind of copyright protection. People would pay a small fee for convenience, even though what they get might be available for free elsewhere.
If implemented as described, your scheme would not require any DRM. Say, you get in your car and you stream a single onto your car player. What possible purpose would DRM serve here? If you needed to get this s
Jobs in plain English (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Jobs in plain English (Score:5, Funny)
"It's quite clear that the record companies carry their share of the responsibility for the situation that the consumers are stuck in. However, no matter what agreements iTunes Music Store have entered into, they're still the company that's selling music to the consumers and are responsible for offering the consumer a fair deal according to Norwegian law."
Apple is making it difficult for other companies to offer DRM infected media to Norwegian citizens. This is unfair, as all companies doing business in Norway should be allowed to screw our citizens equally.
Re: (Score:2)
Silly me though; when I read it I thought that the Norwegian Consumer Ombudsman was acting to protect the consumer, I forgot that it was the big multinational money printers that need a government's protection.
Re: (Score:2)
Choose your battles... (Score:5, Insightful)
What Norway was saying is "it is illegal for you to do business in the way you are"
Jobs replies "this is the only way that makes sense for us"
Norway replies "it's still illegal, you're going to have to fix it or withdraw"
[expectation: Jobs replies "Ok then, we'll stop doing business in Norway"]
Jobs' vision is of making consumers products (and computers, for that matter) that people lust after, while making money of course. He's not interested in getting in their way - a few years ago, I think the iTunes DRM effectively helped Apple, but now I genuinely think the market is theirs to lose, and they have a track-record of making very *very* attractive and successful products in the music market.
I don't think he cares about DRM any more, in fact I think he'd swap the DRM for the risk of running iTunes as it is right now (with the sword of Damocles over his head if FairPlay is ever seriously broken). And I think he'll be more than happy to give up the tiny percentage of iTunes sales that Norway represents in order to remove that risk - "goodbye Norway, thanks for playing, don't let the door hit your ass on the way out"
Simon.
Re: (Score:2)
The terms of sale for Norwegians should not be governed by English law for iTunes Norway and items being sold for Norwegians because England has nothing to do with the sale.
Also, the terms of purchase rights should not be allowed to be changed for an item after it has been sold.
Most parties of this discussion had completely left out the last two major sticking points, and I think it'
Re:Jobs in plain English (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, if Apple went to music distributors and said something like "distribute your songs exclusively over ipods or we'll ban you" that would be unreasonably using market dominance. But to claim that there's some unreasonable market behavior just because you make your products and services work with each other to the exclusion of others? That's just goofy.
Re: (Score:2)
No, that's reality distortion, something which is intrinsic to Jobs' personality.
Re:Jobs in plain English (Score:5, Insightful)
Over the past couple of weeks, I've seen this assertion made many times and I still don't get the logic. The implication is that Apple secretly wants to continue using DRM and is wrongly pointing the finger at the record companies to deflect blame. But the facts don't support that point of view. When he says the that the recording industry is to blame for the situation, he is, in fact, telling the truth and justifiably pointed the finger in that direction.
I understand that people who subscribe to the view that Jobs's statement was a cynical ploy believe that Apple secretly wants to keep DRM alive to "lock in" customers, but the evidence simply doesn't support that viewpoint. Ninety-seven percent of the music on iPods is DRM-free. Customers are not locked in. The lock-in argument is bogus. Furthermore, DRM is a pain in the butt for online music retailers and consumer electronics manufacturers. It is of no benefit to them. It increases the complexity of product development, increases support costs and makes for a poorer customer experience.
So, please explain to me why Apple would want to continue utilizing DRM when it of no benefit to them. Also, I'd be interested in what your response would have been had Apple announced that they would license Fairplay to third parties rather than calling for the end of DRM. Would you have preferred that? I just don't get it. A good portion of the ubiquitously anti-DRM Slashdot crowd seems to be implying that it would be better if Apple proliferated their proprietary DRM than call for the end of DRM. Is that what you want? Would you rather Apple appease Norway's regulators and further entrench DRM than getting rid of it completely?
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, I always remember the Apple ][ file formats...with a Basic that couldn't easily be saved as text. There were good arguments for the strange disk format. You got more storage on each floppy. But to not be ABLE to save to an ASCII file on a standard format... well, I'm a bit dubious when Apple says it doesn't want DRM.
OTOH, it's also true that the DRM contract WAS forced on them by the media. And that Apple fought to simplify
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually there is a different lock-in, and I would really like to know how strong it is.
iTunes (the jukebox software) can encode your CDs to AAC, which (a) has much better sound quality at the same bitrate compared to MP3, and (b) plays on the iTunes. My CDs are all encoded in AAC for reason (a), which "forced" me to buy an iPod. ("Forced" is a bit strong, because (1) I liked the iPod tha
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Ok hows this though. (Score:2)
I don't know the accuracy of that 97% statistic, but assuming Jobs wouldn't lie, and I'm willing to assume that, you could still form a pretty good argument for consumer lockin with Itunes itself. Irrespective of the amount of DRMd music on Ipods, I just checked wikipedia [wikipedia.org] for it and well in excess of 2 billion songs have been sold via itunes. 2 billion dollars is a fairly significant consumer investment any way you look at it.
And to the extent that people keep itunes on their computers because of that i
Re: (Score:2)
I have a translation process constantly running. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I have a translation process constantly running (Score:3, Interesting)
As somebody with a foot in both camps (I design RAS compliant solution architectures for business enablement - ie.. I'm a tech in a suit), "solution" is my current most hated word. It's a redundant tag added by people who think using more words makes them sound brighter. In a way, it does, because their audience is often just as fucked as they are.
If I design a storage or network infrastructure to address a number of issues subject to a number of constraints then, yes, techni
why is this tagged as humo[u]r? (Score:3, Interesting)
It seems like a truly accurate translation from business-doublespeak into plain English, and as such is insightful and scary, not humorous.
Steve Jobs (Score:2)
At least he'd have a laugh. Maybe it would spur him on to fight even harder.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The thing I'd expect the least is Steve Jobs (whose company makes the most DRM-fucked up mp3 player in the world) fighting against DRM. Talk is cheap and I will not believe a word, unless I see the results.
iPod does not equal DRM (Score:2, Insightful)
The thing I'd expect the least is Steve Jobs (whose company makes the most DRM-fucked up mp3 player in the world) fighting against DRM. Talk is cheap and I will not believe a word, unless I see the results.
People need to stop spouting this nonsense. The iPod is not DRM laiden. The iPod does not create DRM. The iPod does not do anything but play the files YOU give it. If you do not purchase music files that have DRM then you do not have to play music files with DRM. You can put any MP3s you want on the iPod, they won't magically become something different than they were before you put them on there.
Complain about the iTunes music store all you want, but direct your complaints where they belong.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Almost, but not quite (Score:5, Insightful)
"Black is White" is certainly the case of "DRM increases consumer value". But the point to:
Isn't simply: "Abandoning DRM will prevent us from forcing our customers to keep paying us over and over again for the same movies and songs they've already paid for."
It's more pernicious than that. It reveals the fundamental difference in philosophy: we don't buy things anymore, we "consume content", and they "own content". Ownership is a social convention: in theory, we more or less agree what constitutes "property". Now they are trying to change the rules, claiming they own all the things we use, and we pay them whatever they deem fit. So we become intellectual sharecroppers: we own nothing and owe everything.
The beauty of the letter, however, really lies in how it reveals that the DRM proponents' own ridiculous notions of intellectual property prevent them from having their "DRM-laden paradise". For DRM to truly work, it has to be transparent to the user, interoperable, and add value, not remove it. And, wait! Today's technology can do that! But hold on: that technology is itself "High-value content", and as such needs protection through trade secrets, patents, and proprietary deals, and the resulting product is subject to the same market forces as the content it is supposed to protect. Dammit! The same logic we use to defend DRM shows us that DRM cannot work!
Re: (Score:2)
You're absolutely right, especially in your analysis of the emerging DRM-centered philosophy of ownership. This is just a further continuation of the philosophy of leasing housing, transportation, and now - images, sounds, and ideas. In the end, all this means is that we will find ourselves yet again in a society where a microscopic fraction of the population owns everything, and by withdrawing the permission to use their "property" can effectively crush anyone they please. Conside
I translated it as I read it the first time (Score:2)
Ultimate DRM (Score:4, Interesting)
It may be shameless self-promotion but I made a visualisation of the Ultimate DRM [deviantart.com] just the other day. What happened to giving the customer what they want?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
DRM does add costumer value to the product, for Macromedia's customers. Macromedia's customers, however, are not you and me. Most of Macromedia's customers are members of an organization that ends in AA.
Re: (Score:2)
It was never about that. It's always been about convincing the customer that they want what you are selling, and, moreover, convincing them that they want to buy it from _you_.
Explain? (Score:5, Insightful)
I know their entire business relies on DRM's success but every encounter I have had with it ended up being some sort of pain in the ass. How does DRM increase consumer value. Like, why should I be excited that I can't copy media from one format to another without it being a hassle? I wish Macrovision explained that statement.
Re: (Score:2)
It absolutely doesn't. Thats why they need to use all the business doublespeak to justify themselves in their reply.
>> I wish Macrovision explained that statement
They won't/can't ever do that because there's no rational argument to defend it.
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, from Napster's FAQ [napster.com],
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Keep in mind that Macrovision's customer is the content owner. In their vision, the "consumer" is just a mindless vehicle for the transfer of money, to be exploited as much as possible.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll explain. DRM drives up the price of content (new players, compensation for the cost of developing and maintaining DRM schemes, re-purchasing content that has become inaccessible,
Of course, as a customer, you don't have many choices. Either you pay, or you risk lawsuits (possibly resulting in fines and/or jail time), or yo
Summary (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyone surprised? (Score:2)
Bill Gates (Score:2, Funny)
That is so awesome (Score:2)
I don't understand something (Score:2)
Why not restrict DRM to rented content such as the Napster service that allows you to download and listen to unlimited amount of music provided you keep paying your monthly fee. I like that service and I don't want to see it go. On the other front, I also want to buy some music and movies to keep forever - so in this case, why not sell it to me DRM-free?
This sounds to me like a win-win situation and certainly a good compromise.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Napster's "to Go" service allows you to download unlimited songs which will play for as long as you pay the monthly fee. Its good for people who want to listen to lots of music without incurring the cost of actually buying all that music (and who want to be be legal). Why would people want to rent a movie when they could just buy one? They just do.
Oops, he got this one wrong: (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Not that damn many... do you remember long before the current HD-DVD/Blu-Ray breach, when it was discovered that Windows' "print screen" was a trusted program and could take screencaps of the movie? Well, it got blown up as a huge issue "OMG they can click-script stepping throught the whole movie" and they disabled it. Now, how many fair uses are there of taking a screencap? Pretty damn many, I'd thi
Macrovision admits the real intention of DRM (Score:3, Insightful)
Does anyone really think that a consumer wants to buy the same song or movie more than once without there being some added value to the second purchase? If you buy a movie on DVD, should you have to pay again to play it on your computer? On your portable media player? According to this guy, this is what consumers WANT to do. Uh huh. So if I buy a CD, instead of having the fair use right (which I still have) to convert that music to a format I can use on my iPod, I would actually be better off buying the same content again in a format that already works on my iPod?
I know Macrovision is in the DRM business and so they are hardly neutral on the idea of whether DRM should become the industry standard, but they really need to work harder on their arguments about why DRM is good. I guess the marketing department rejected using terminology like "resell the same shit".
Re:Fairly amusing but not overly informative (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
+5 Funny for that one, dude.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Fairly amusing but not overly informative (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Macromedia!?
Re: (Score:2)
I think the words you were looking for are: rebuttal and macrovision
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I very curious: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, I should back-pedal a bit on that...it can work as well as any other economic system we've devised. Once you start allowing fiat-monopolies (copyrights, patents, trademarks, etc.) things quickly get more comples, and it's not honest to call the resulting system capitalism. Also, the evidence for capitalism working fine is limited. It's limited to low density populations living in areas with poor t
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And I find it kind of funny, I find it kind of (Score:2, Informative)
Re:the text (Score:5, Interesting)
This is why it's always a good idea to present the original texts alongside a translation. Sure, as in this example, most people won't be able to read and understand the original. But some will, and (again as in this example) those people can help verify that the translation is accurate.
Just think of all of history's warfare that could have been prevented if if were a legal requirement that translations always be presented side-by-side with the original. Holy books would always include the original, so the mistranslations would be visible to those with a bit of knowledge. Politicians wouldn't get away with "straw-man" distortions of their enemies' statements, because the distorted version would be accompanied by the original.
But I guess we know why such an idea couldn't possibly be accepted, especially not by our religious or political leaders. Probably not by our corporate leaders, either.
Re: (Score:2)
Language is not the barrier. Mutual consensus is. It was plainly obvious to anyone who has a brain that the intelligence used to justify an invasion of Iraq was faulty. It didn't ever pass the smell test, and yet there was a broad base of support for it among a large number of Americans. There are still Americans who believe that Saddam Hussein supported Al Qaeda, and there's no proof of that what so ever.
It is possible
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, i'm okay with that. I just think that there are benign irrational beliefs that i don't care about (spirituality, or whatever generally), or find harmless (not to say that there aren't religious beliefs that i
Oh oh... (Score:4, Funny)
I'll get my team of lawyers to work on this Monday morning....