Vista protection cost?

[Paul Johnson]

Who knows? If you never pirate stuff, you'll never find out.

It's a little disingenious to think that. Maybe he wants to burn it to a CD
or copy it to a cassette deck for his car, something US copyright law
considers perfectly acceptable, yet media companies consider theft.
Personally, I find that situation amusing, since if copying media I paid
for to another format for my truck is considered theft, expecting me to pay
for crippled media is robbery by extension.

 

[Kerry Brown]

That is the solution to the whole DRM problem - never purchase DRM protected
media. If consumers revolted it would go away. I think the media companies
are experimenting to see just what we'll take. They are purposely trying to
find our limit.

 

[Jon]

I may be mistaken, but I think "Kerry Brown" <[email protected]*a*m>
said something like the following in message

That is the solution to the whole DRM problem - never purchase DRM
protected media. If consumers revolted it would go away. I think the media
companies are experimenting to see just what we'll take. They are
purposely trying to find our limit.

DRM-free music. Get purchasing ;-)

http://www.emusic.com/

 

[caver1]

And yet you're one of them, according to your user agent. Planning on
coming to the Light Side of the Force soon?

I never said I thought they had bad software. I think there business
practices stink. I have two other computers set up. One with Ubuntu, one
with Mepis. But I do have a wife and daughter that don't want to mess
with Linux until I know it well enough to help them with it. So my Email
stays on this one until that time. Hopefully by the time this XP box
dies I will have them over to Linux.

 

[caver1]

It's a little disingenious to think that. Maybe he wants to burn it to a CD
or copy it to a cassette deck for his car, something US copyright law
considers perfectly acceptable, yet media companies consider theft.
Personally, I find that situation amusing, since if copying media I paid
for to another format for my truck is considered theft, expecting me to pay
for crippled media is robbery by extension.

If you copy it to a cassette for your own use you already paid the
royalties with the purchase of the media and cassette recorder. If it's
theft because of royalties they are worried about how can they call you
a thief if you already paid them?

 

[caver1]

That is the solution to the whole DRM problem - never purchase DRM
protected media. If consumers revolted it would go away. I think the
media companies are experimenting to see just what we'll take. They are
purposely trying to find our limit.

At the same time DRM capable software or hardware should not be
purchased either. So I guess that leaves MS out in the cold also. If the
operating system doesn't support DRM there will be nothing for the media
companies to have their content played on. This is as much a MS problem
as it is the recording and movie industry problem.

 

[Kerry Brown]

At the same time DRM capable software or hardware should not be purchased
either. So I guess that leaves MS out in the cold also. If the operating
system doesn't support DRM there will be nothing for the media companies
to have their content played on. This is as much a MS problem as it is the
recording and movie industry problem.

I agree with you in principle but in practice I can see a case for a
business decision to include DRM. This applies to anyone developing a
software or hardware player. How would you explain to your customer that the
software/device they purchased a year ago is now obsolete because you were
defending a principle? In our litigious society that would be irresponsible
to both the shareholders and the consumers. The problem is with the content
providers not the content enablers. They are in a catch-22 situation.

 

[caver1]

I agree with you in principle but in practice I can see a case for a
business decision to include DRM. This applies to anyone developing a
software or hardware player. How would you explain to your customer that
the software/device they purchased a year ago is now obsolete because
you were defending a principle? In our litigious society that would be
irresponsible to both the shareholders and the consumers. The problem is
with the content providers not the content enablers. They are in a
catch-22 situation.

Yes but if you look at what MS says it tells a lot. MS agrees with DRM
as it stands now. Not that it is being forced on them. Also MS is large
enough that if they said DRM okay with these changes only, the media
industry could not afford to ignore MS.

 

[Paul Johnson]

I never said I thought they had bad software.

I didn't accuse you of that.

I think there business practices stink.

My point was you approve of them just enough to pay them money. In American
economics, money talks and bullshit walks. You have the power to make them
go N invoices closer to walking, and that option saves you money. )

I have two other computers set up. One with Ubuntu, one
with Mepis. But I do have a wife and daughter that don't want to mess
with Linux until I know it well enough to help them with it. So my Email
stays on this one until that time. Hopefully by the time this XP box
dies I will have them over to Linux.

Every major transition at a local site requires a set date or people will
just stay with what they have. You're going to have to take a little bit
of initiative if you want to make it so.

 

[Paul Johnson]

If you copy it to a cassette for your own use you already paid the
royalties with the purchase of the media and cassette recorder. If it's
theft because of royalties they are worried about how can they call you
a thief if you already paid them?

And therein lies exactly the problem with DRM. Media companies do not want
you to have fair use, this is why they tried to criminalize the use of
video cassette recorders when they came out. This is just the latest move
to take away your freedoms and give you less choice.

 

[Paul Johnson]

I agree with you in principle but in practice I can see a case for a
business decision to include DRM. This applies to anyone developing a
software or hardware player. How would you explain to your customer that
the software/device they purchased a year ago is now obsolete because you
were defending a principle? In our litigious society that would be
irresponsible to both the shareholders and the consumers.

Other way around. Not defending that principal is irresponsible to
shareholders and consumers and is guaranteed to get you sued. Both
Microsoft and Apple are being sued for infringing on fair use rights
provided by US copyright law by way of the antitrust act as thanks for
implementing DRM restrictions.

 

[caver1]

And therein lies exactly the problem with DRM. Media companies do not want
you to have fair use, this is why they tried to criminalize the use of
video cassette recorders when they came out. This is just the latest move
to take away your freedoms and give you less choice.

Exactly.They priced DAT right out of market. Now they want everything
out of the market. Big companies keep getting bigger not by better
business practices or better products but by cheating the consumer and
buying out competitors.

 

[Kerry Brown]

Other way around. Not defending that principal is irresponsible to
shareholders and consumers and is guaranteed to get you sued. Both
Microsoft and Apple are being sued for infringing on fair use rights
provided by US copyright law by way of the antitrust act as thanks for
implementing DRM restrictions.

We'll have to see how it plays out in the courts. I believe there would be
more of an outcry from the general public if DRM is implemented as proposed
and Vista didn't work with it than currently but you may be right.

 

[Paul Johnson]

We'll have to see how it plays out in the courts. I believe there would be
more of an outcry from the general public if DRM is implemented as
proposed and Vista didn't work with it than currently but you may be
right.

Now why would that be? All users want freedom, and DRM takes it away. If
Vista respects your fair use rights, I see no reason for anybody to get
pissed at Vista for this. DRM in all forms is bad for the consumer and not
something the consumer wants, so why would consumers be upset if it's not
there?

 

[Kerry Brown]

Now why would that be? All users want freedom, and DRM takes it away. If
Vista respects your fair use rights, I see no reason for anybody to get
pissed at Vista for this. DRM in all forms is bad for the consumer and
not
something the consumer wants, so why would consumers be upset if it's not
there?

Because the DVD they just bought won't play on their high definition TV.

 

[caver1]

Because the DVD they just bought won't play on their high definition TV.

Some people want the latest and greatest at any cost. So who cares if
you lose overall in watching that DVD?

 

[Kerry Brown]

Some people want the latest and greatest at any cost. So who cares if you
lose overall in watching that DVD?

I'm not saying it's right but if you ask most people then yes, they are
probably more concerned that it just works than that it has some kind of
copy protection. More people would be upset if something doesn't work than
if it does work but there is some technical behind the scenes wizardry to
make it work. If the DRM encryption as proposed works with little
inconvenience to the the end user then the vast majority of consumers
couldn't care less how it works just that it does and they can play their
new DVD. This is the reality that the content providers are hoping for. In
case this reality comes to be is why most software/hardware developers are
planning for it. I personally don't think this will happen. The technology
is too complicated and there are too many points of failure where it can go
wrong and inconvenience the end user. Even given that I believe it will
fail, if I was developing a player I would plan for it not failing just in
case. If you plan for it to fail and it doesn't then your application/device
fails and you have upset consumers who will blame you. Companies who bet the
other way will have an opportunity to steal your market share. If you plan
for it to work and it is never implemented then the consumer is none the
wiser and couldn't care less. If it works with problems then everyone else
will also be having problems and you can point the finger elsewhere.
Planning for DRM to work has less downside than not planning for it. And
yes, I know this plays into the content providers hands but it is the way
things work in our consumer oriented, litigious society.

 

[Paul Johnson]

Because the DVD they just bought won't play on their high definition TV.

That would be the DVD manufacturer's fault for not using (standardized, but
long-ago-cracked) CSS or no encryption, and because it doesn't meet the
standard, then it isn't really a DVD. Return it as faulty and give 'em
hell about the false advertising if they give you trouble.

 

[Paul Johnson]

Planning for DRM to work has less downside than not planning for it.

Yeah, but only if you don't care if the media you buy today works in 8 or 10
or 12 years.