RSS
Twitter
Content Providers "Failing To Protect Copyright"
from the they-would-say-that-wouldn't-they dept
Copy-protection maker Macrovision -- not surprisingly -- says entertainment companies need to use more copy protection (registration required). The original article keeps using the term "copyright protection", saying that half the CDs, DVDs and computer games sold in Europe have no form of "copyright protection" on them. That sounds like a nice touchy-feely term Macrovision came up with to mask what they're really talking about -- copy protection. But the company's assertion is based on a few false assumptions. First and foremost is that copy protection actually works, something that's been proven wrong time and time again. Also false is the idea that copy protection is inherently a good thing, particularly when all it really does is piss off customers. Macrovision says companies are wasting their time suing file-sharers and would be better off implementing more measures to stop copying (presumably by buying something from Macrovision). Why not save the time and the money, though, and just figure out a new and better business model for entertainment content instead?
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
RIAA bedfellows?
"Why not save the time and the money, though, and just figure out a new and better business model for entertainment content instead?"
Because, change, although inevitable, is much harder than a steady course. Re-invention means (possibly) job cuts, pay cuts, and other cuts that executives (should) fear might include them.
that's my small view...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
copy restriction
It's not "copy protection." It's copy restriction. These obfuscating terms don't do the consumer any good.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Are they legitimate media?
Since I'm not willing to register at the Guardian site, I don't know if the original article states this, but I wonder if the media Macrovision is talking about is legitimate, "legal" media or if it's bootleg. If it's legal, then Macrovision has nothing to say about how the sellers treat their products. If it's bootleg, then Macrovision has a vested interest in pushing copy protection.
Actually, it all rings of how Symantec is talking about the "viruses and malware" that's "affecting" Apple systems. Even though it's not as bad (or even exists) as Symantec says, they have to put the FUD out to make people buy their products. Same thing with Macrovision.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment