Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 23rd Jan 2006 19:20 UTC
Legal "DRM is a lie. When an agenda driven DRM infection peddler gets on a soapbox and blathers about how it is necessary to protect the BMW payments of a producer who leeches off the talented, rest assured, they are lying to you. DRM has absolutely nothing to do with protecting content, it is about protecting the wallets of major corporations. The funny thing is they aren't protecting it from you, they are protecting it from each other."
Thread beginning with comment 88700
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: AMEN
by steveftoth on Mon 23rd Jan 2006 22:34 UTC in reply to "RE: AMEN"
steveftoth
Member since:
2005-10-30

Not really melodramatic, especially considering that the pro-DRM camp uses the same style arguments for DRM.

Why should the record companies limit you to the way you want to listen to the music that you paid to listen to. Or watch the movies you paid for. If it's technically possibly to re-encode a DVD to play on your psp/iPod/mediaplayer2000x then why should they limit you unless it's only to line their pockets with money? Especially when it makes it harder for people to play their content?

DRM = Greed

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: AMEN
by jjmckay on Mon 23rd Jan 2006 23:14 in reply to "RE[2]: AMEN"
jjmckay Member since:
2005-11-11

(in response to steveftoth's post)

Because of the polar opposite of the corporate greed - the personal greed of piracy. Each polar opposite reinforces the other.

It is what Eckart Tolle describes as 'unconscious self seeking'. The corporations are self seeking by wanting all the money to "make it in life" as almost everyone does. The users who steal or expect music at no cost also self seek by the act of stealing. I'm not bashing either one, just pointing out that they exist together, not separate.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: AMEN
by dylansmrjones on Mon 23rd Jan 2006 23:23 in reply to "RE[3]: AMEN"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

The user who steals music is the same person who buys legal music 5 times more often than the lawabing users.

The more people copy illegally the more they buy legally.

Therefore DMCA and DRM are no meant to stop piracy but to give companies greater control over cash flow so they can get more money.

The arguments used by the companies as support for DMCA and DRM, are the same arguments the companies used to prohibit legal parallel import of DVDs from USA to Europe.

It shut down several minor danish companies living of legally selling non-main stream movies to people.

This cash flow went (in the end) to american companies instead of the local danish offices of said companies. Ergo, they lost money, and that had to be illegal.

It's all about money and power, and has nothing to do will piracy or any such thing.

DRM is a lie.

Reply Parent Score: 5

was: AMEN, now: THERE ARE NO FACT OF STEALING!!!
by croco on Tue 24th Jan 2006 09:51 in reply to "RE[3]: AMEN"
croco Member since:
2005-09-16

> ... The users who steal or expect music at no cost also self seek by the act of stealing. ...

Surely you understand that stealing has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with downloading, right? The original CD/DVD/...-buyer still having his product, so there is NO FACT OF STEALING at all. There are NOTHING MISSING . It's just about DUPLICATING. Yes, it is in most cases violating of the user agreement (but just for the original buyer), but the word "stealing" is just another ??AA propaganda-trick. Stealing CD from music store - yes, it's stealing. But downloading stuff from internet - it's DUPLICATING. Please, don't support the ??AA-bastards, DON'T CALL IT STEALING!

Reply Parent Score: 1

haugland Member since:
2005-07-07

Maybe you are right, but your argument is flawed. The fact that "pirates" buy a lot of music does not imply that more piracy will lead to more music sales. Maybe the good customers would buy even more music if they did not download illegal copies.

The ??AA is a bunch of a**holes, but they would have a lot less arguments for DRM if there was no piracy. I know that "regulatory technology" like regional codes is independent of piracy, but it is much less of a pain in the ass (and it is a common standard).

If the music and movie industries use different DRM as a competitive factor, the market/consumers will dictate that any DRM that is too restrictive will fail. If iTunes had a more restrictive form of DRM (or a complete failure like Sony's rootkit), it would not be as successful.

Reply Parent Score: 1