DRM is a means by which a company can suck more money out of the consumer. It prevents me from taking my movie and say... watching it on my iPod/iPad (though there are some movies that come with digital downloads and such). It prevents me from making copies of my valuable, yet fragile disks(how many DVDs have I replaced????). To the gentleman above(AJB), there is indeed a VERY perceptable difference between upconverted DVD and a BD, if you are unable to see this significant(um, order of magnitue) difference, then either you do not have your players wired correctly, or your TV is unable to display full 1080p. Try again.
DRM is a good idea, but the implimentation is very poor. DRM excludes and denies fair use principles. It denies the consumer choice and the abiliity to protect their investment. There are many excellent reasons to fight DRM. The incovenience is certainly a good one, circular logic is another... Price is high partly because they have to keep upgrading drm to prevent copying... but, time and again, it has been proven(SONY) that DRM ONLY affects your legitimate customers and in part drives those to piracy... priates do NOT see your adverts, your warnings, your preview and MOST IMPORTANTLY - THEY NEVER SEE YOUR DRM - Only the ones that are interested in actaully purchasing your product are subjected to the added cost of DRM on the players and on the media...
I find I take exception to a lot of the comments here. EULA's and other agreements are ridiculously large, tedious and confusing documents, to the point of even some companies don't know all the ins and outs of what they are asking you to sign. The complexity of these documents and what they hide is why so many of us ended up with the Sony rootkit on our hard drives. Part of this is our own fault (McDonalds coffee, Hardees obesity suit, burglars suing homeowners for injuries sustained during burglary, and others). Because our system is set up so that anyone can sue for nearly any frivilous reason and stand a high chance of winning, companies go to extaordinary lengths to protect themselves.... We, the average consumer get to pay the price. The fact that there are some out there that would use this to their advantage is a side symptom of the "sue and get rich" mentality... In the real world(ie anywhere out side of a courtroom) Technical documents for the average person MUST be written at an 8th grade level (try writing a maintenance guide for an air brake system for a commuter rail at an 8th grade level... ) that is the standard, and given that the majority of US Citizens barely test out at a 10th grade level, any attempt of the average citizen to read and understand these "contracts" is ludicrous at best... at clown show at worst... The US Tax Code is something of far more immediate importance to americans, and yet... it is nearly as bad, if not worse than most of these contracts...
The whole system needs to be scrapped and revamped... and patently ridiculous lawsuits should be pre-emptorily dismissed (McDonalds??? Seriously... )
I will admit, right off the bat, that I don't know all the ins and outs of Copyright Law, DMCA et al, however, the offending words here are "accused". Cox is legitimizing the summary termination of service based on an accusation. There is no mention of due process, discovery, investigation or verification of any time. This strikes me as call US Cellular and telling them that I overheard joe blow discussing terrorism plans on his cell phone. I do this 3 times and he looses his phone?
No, I grant there is no "right" to cable, however, it is a service I purchase, I pay for it. I pay for it in advance, at least a month, possibly for a year. There is a due process of law before one may remove ones property without recompense. There is also the tenant here in this country that one is innocent until proven guilty. Cox is assuming guilt based on accusation... that is wrong. This is nearly as bad as another company suspending service because one is using too much of it...
Essentially, the company is infringing on our rights... exactly how, depends on which way they go about it. But to brank one guilty without any recourse, and to punish us monetarily... without a hearing... is wrong on several fronts...
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Dragon Rider IL.
Blue Ray et al
DRM is a means by which a company can suck more money out of the consumer. It prevents me from taking my movie and say... watching it on my iPod/iPad (though there are some movies that come with digital downloads and such). It prevents me from making copies of my valuable, yet fragile disks(how many DVDs have I replaced????). To the gentleman above(AJB), there is indeed a VERY perceptable difference between upconverted DVD and a BD, if you are unable to see this significant(um, order of magnitue) difference, then either you do not have your players wired correctly, or your TV is unable to display full 1080p. Try again.
DRM is a good idea, but the implimentation is very poor. DRM excludes and denies fair use principles. It denies the consumer choice and the abiliity to protect their investment. There are many excellent reasons to fight DRM. The incovenience is certainly a good one, circular logic is another... Price is high partly because they have to keep upgrading drm to prevent copying... but, time and again, it has been proven(SONY) that DRM ONLY affects your legitimate customers and in part drives those to piracy... priates do NOT see your adverts, your warnings, your preview and MOST IMPORTANTLY - THEY NEVER SEE YOUR DRM - Only the ones that are interested in actaully purchasing your product are subjected to the added cost of DRM on the players and on the media...
Too Stupid to READ....
I find I take exception to a lot of the comments here. EULA's and other agreements are ridiculously large, tedious and confusing documents, to the point of even some companies don't know all the ins and outs of what they are asking you to sign. The complexity of these documents and what they hide is why so many of us ended up with the Sony rootkit on our hard drives. Part of this is our own fault (McDonalds coffee, Hardees obesity suit, burglars suing homeowners for injuries sustained during burglary, and others). Because our system is set up so that anyone can sue for nearly any frivilous reason and stand a high chance of winning, companies go to extaordinary lengths to protect themselves.... We, the average consumer get to pay the price. The fact that there are some out there that would use this to their advantage is a side symptom of the "sue and get rich" mentality... In the real world(ie anywhere out side of a courtroom) Technical documents for the average person MUST be written at an 8th grade level (try writing a maintenance guide for an air brake system for a commuter rail at an 8th grade level... ) that is the standard, and given that the majority of US Citizens barely test out at a 10th grade level, any attempt of the average citizen to read and understand these "contracts" is ludicrous at best... at clown show at worst... The US Tax Code is something of far more immediate importance to americans, and yet... it is nearly as bad, if not worse than most of these contracts...
The whole system needs to be scrapped and revamped... and patently ridiculous lawsuits should be pre-emptorily dismissed (McDonalds??? Seriously... )
Cox and ISPs in general...
I will admit, right off the bat, that I don't know all the ins and outs of Copyright Law, DMCA et al, however, the offending words here are "accused". Cox is legitimizing the summary termination of service based on an accusation. There is no mention of due process, discovery, investigation or verification of any time. This strikes me as call US Cellular and telling them that I overheard joe blow discussing terrorism plans on his cell phone. I do this 3 times and he looses his phone?
No, I grant there is no "right" to cable, however, it is a service I purchase, I pay for it. I pay for it in advance, at least a month, possibly for a year. There is a due process of law before one may remove ones property without recompense. There is also the tenant here in this country that one is innocent until proven guilty. Cox is assuming guilt based on accusation... that is wrong. This is nearly as bad as another company suspending service because one is using too much of it...
Essentially, the company is infringing on our rights... exactly how, depends on which way they go about it. But to brank one guilty without any recourse, and to punish us monetarily... without a hearing... is wrong on several fronts...