Re: Why Sony Will Die


"Karyudo" <karyudo_usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:v6r102t3fdrbq0q2m5q814s7u2vjcu6bko@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 15:06:13 -0800, "Charles Tomaras"
<tomaras@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"Karyudo" <karyudo_usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:2tj1021sl0m666j0qs0b361h35lic9vobf@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 10:47:42 -0800, "Charles Tomaras"
<tomaras@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e6a60eaf43fc79098a3c9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Charles Tomaras (tomaras@xxxxxxxxxxx) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
If
you
have a problem with this you should take it up with the people who
produced
it http://www.interactual.com/ They are in no way affiliated with
Microsoft
save for having used a codec and DRM which Microsoft developed.

It's not the player that was the problem...it was the DRM system.
Thus,
it's Microsoft's problem.


Microsoft sold a drm system to a company who decided out of the MYRIAD
of
ways it can be implemented how they wanted to implement it. How is that
Microsoft's problem? I suppose when you buy a lock at the hardware store
it
is the lock makers fault if you decide to use it to lock a child in a
closet?

I think it might be at least partly the lock maker's fault, if they
went around advertising. "Perfect for locking a child in a closet!"

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/drm/default.mspx

Do a little reading and then get back to me about what is deceptive about
Microsoft's DRM. It's configurable to just about ANY sort of level of ease
or restriction that you want to put on it. Totally configurable. Totally
in
the hands of the rights holder who implements it.

Still totally for locking up media.

Give me an example from
Microsoft's pages that is analogous to your "perfect for locking a child
in
the closet" statement.

How about the fact that they call it "Media Digital Rights
Management"?

But, if you insist, how about this little snippet:

"For the most secure measure, instruct the license clearing house to
issue only Windows Media Rights Manager version 9 licenses; no Windows
Media DRM version 1 license will be issued. This measure would exclude
users of Windows Media Player on the Apple Macintosh, Windows 95, and
Windows NT 4.0 platforms from accessing protected content."

That sure sounds like they have made a lock that could be used to lock
something specific (media; cf. a child), and are advertising it as
such ("would exclude users [...] from accessing [...] content"; cf.
"perfect for locking a child in a closet!")

It's like you're arguing that a lock manufacturer would say that a
lock labelled "perfect for locking a child in a closet" wouldn't
necessarily be used for locking a child in a closet, and therefore it
must be blameless for providing such locks. Once again, I call
bullsh!t.

You gotta be kidding. Microsoft is saying thier DRM is perfect for keeping
people from playing or copying content in any way that the rights holder
doesn't want. The bull*** is that you seem to feel that you have some sort
of right to do as you please with other people's property.



It's the "anything with Microsoft's
name attached to it is bad" bias surfacing once again.

Not true. I actually think Microsoft has done a pretty incredible job
of building an operating system that works on such a variety of
hardware, etc. They're clearly at the top for a reason (and only
partially because of their anti-competitive nature). But the fact
remains that they are purveyors of DRM, which I happen to think is
anti-consumer and evil. Quite apart from the fact as august an
institution as the US Justice Department figured Microsoft itself
might just be anti-consumer and evil.

You're just all pissy because you can't get around it like you
did with your Macrovision busting boxes.

Hey, now: that's uncalled for. In this conversation we're having, I
have never once mentioned anything about Macrovision, let alone
"Macrovision-busting boxes." I don't know quite why you yourself are
getting "all pissy" and bringing up this red herring. I thought we
were having a nice, rational conversation about the evils of DRM, and
here you've gone and lashed out with something that's meant to be
personal -- and, maybe worse, is off-topic.

Well damn...I guess you win. I've learned that Microsoft and Sony are evil
companies and people should be free to copy anything they want at any time
under all circumstances. I've also learned that making copies of bits isn't
stealing if one never intended to buy the original bits and neither is
sharing those bit copies with others who had no intention of ever paying for
them either. IP rights holders should count their blessings at the added
exposure they get for FREE from these bit copiers. Why without the bit
copiers these companies would all go under. Heck...if Sony really cared they
would provide free cameras to theater patrons to shoot the movies that
aren't yet on the net for free copying.


.

Quantcast