I do think the media companies are looking at "other" ways besides 
DRM to "protect" their investments.  I think that observation is spot 
on.  And getting a piece of the hardware is the next step.

Look as a concept I do not oppose DRM, I do believe that they have 
the right to protect their copyrights and works against piracy.  
However, these competing formats and heavy handed restrictions are 
just crazy, I can only transfer my songs to 3 computers?  Do you know 
how many computers I will go through in my life time?  The 
restrictions do not take into account so many things that just happen 
in life.

What kills me and got me to thinking last night is why the industry 
can not just settle on a stardard and go, "look, this is our 
standard, you wanna sell our stuff, here it is"  Then Itunes, Zune 
marketplace, Real, and so on would all have the same standard and 
then price and service and selection, etc become the deciding factor 
and if you want an Ipod, or a sandisk or an Archos, they would play 
together.  

I am begining to think that the media companies do NOT WANT a 
standard, I am begining to think that they feel that if they keep it 
confusing, keep it hard, that the market penatration will slowly 
stop.  I think they do not want downloads even though it has proven 
sucessful because of the low profit margin of downloads.  And don't 
think for a second that they are not working on other "rootkit" CD's 
that "spy" on you........ 

For the record I did check out a Zune last night just because, and it 
looks pretty cool and I did like the screen size but for me bottom 
line I do not want yet ANOTHER DRM restriction, I don't want to have 
to continue to burn disks then rip them to get them to play together, 
it's stupid, IMO.  I mean is it to much to ask that what I buy work 
on my stero, my car, and an Mp3 player and not have to go through 
hoops to do it?

I know, wishful thinking....

Heath
http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com


--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Watkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> 
> On ownership of the media we buy, and shortsightedness, I can see 
why
> the media companies think it would actually be shortsighted of them 
to
> give in to the notion that they can only sell us something once.
> 
> They really loved getting people to buy the same music they already
> owned on a new enhanced format, CD. And much the same witht he
> transition from video tapes to DVD. 
> 
> Theyve come to hate and fear digital representation of their wares 
for
> the simple reason that digital stuff can be copied without any loss 
of
> quality. They want to be able to sell us the same stuff again and
> again, every time htere is a new wave of devices to listen to it on.
> 
> They probably look enviously at the software industry, where much of
> the stuff you buy isnt really you buying property, but just a 
license
> to use the product in certain very limited scenarios.
> 
> So what do they do to protect their rights? Attack on multiple 
fronts.
> Try to block ease of digital copying wherever possible. Continue 
with
> anti-piracy propaganda (the one about downloading music being 
exactly
> the same as stealing a cd from a shop is a good example), try to
> 'educate the consumer' to understanding that the physical medium the
> product shipped in, or in the digital case which DRM was used, is 
what
> they are buying not perpetual rights to the actual content, and 
other
> such guff.
> 
> But lets not pretend that we're just talking about faceless 
boardroom
> non-creatives being the only ones behind this. Lars Ulrich the
> Metallica drummer was just as vocally anti-mp3 as the middlemen. And
> somewhere, in the possible future where some people will get rich
> vlogging, we may find the debate about vlog creators protecting 
their
> rights meeting the debate about media networks denying their 
customers
> rights headlong, with the possibility of all sorts of hilarious
> doublethink hypocracatic positions being spewed. Idf love to think
> that vloggers wont be shortsighted int he same way, understanding
> these new medias much better as both consumers and creators, but big
> enough dollar may make it potentially not so clear-cut. Wont know 
till
> that dollar arrives to yield its corrupting influence on our
> ideologies. Sure in principal I agree, but I need another swimming
> pool int he shape of a giant CC license symbol :D
> 
> + insert rant about how corporations are legally bound to focus on
> shareholder value, and that this is often not calculated by taking 
the
> long-term view on how to profit from existing catalog in new ways, 
but
> the sort of shortsighted protectionism that we are discussing here.
> 
> The Register seems to think that Universal may face anti-trust 
issues
> if this stuff gets looked at by the European system, and that Apple
> and others wont cave intot his like microsoft. Time will tell, its a
> short but interesting article which also has some actual $ numbers 
and
> other angles on this thang.
> 
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/16/ms_universal_zune_deal/
> 
> Maybe its also possible that theyve got real about not being able to
> win the battle with DRM alone. Maybe if they come round to thinking
> that once people have got their media digitally in good enough
> quality, they will try to keep that media for the rest of their 
lives,
> not buy it again, that the companies can only make money by 
profiting
> from the hardware used to play the digital stuff, as such hardware 
has
> built in obsolesence so will be bought many more times than the
> content itself! Hmm maybe I am onto something there? 
> 
> Steve Elbows
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Heath" <heathparks@> wrote:
> >
> > I'm not sure if you are saying we "can't" own media period as a 
> > matter of principle or we can't "own" media because we have been 
> > forced or have allowed the rules of media to be different from 
every 
> > other form of goods.....cause it is a good.  at least it is in my 
> > mind.  
> > 
> > I believe that we should be able to own the things we purchase 
and if 
> > I choose to purchase something again because of an advancement 
that I 
> > want, then that is a choice that I make.  Being forced into a 
choice 
> > or having the choice taken away from me rankles me.
> > 
> > I understand the music and film industries need to protect their 
> > investment, but the tactics that they are going about 
to "protect" 
> > themselves IMO is shortsighted.  
> > 
> > Heath
> > http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com
> > 
> > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Markus Sandy 
<markus.sandy@> 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Heath wrote:
> > > 
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ALL the music I
> > > > have is mine, I bought it, I ripped it and if I want I should 
be
> > > > able to wipe my butt with it. Cause I PAID for it and I paid 
for a
> > > > number of different devices to play it on.
> > > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > i hear you heath, but unfortunately we do not own media just 
> > because we 
> > > shelled out hard cash for it (repeatedly)
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Markus Sandy
> > > 
> > > http://feeds.feedburner.com/apperceptions
> > > http://feeds.feedburner.com/digitaldojo
> > > http://feeds.feedburner.com/havemoneywillvlog
> > > http://feeds.feedburner.com/spinflow
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
>



Reply via email to