Macrovision Responds to Steve Jobs on DRM 221
An anonymous reader writes "Macrovision Corporation, best known for its long history of DRM implementations, (everything from VCRs to software copy protection), has responded to Steve Jobs open letter regarding DRM. With ample experience and despite the obvious vested interests, it's great to hear their point of view. In the letter they acknowledge the 'difficult challenges' of implementing DRM that is truly 'interoperable and open'. At the same time they also feel that DRM 'will increase electronic distribution', if implemented properly, because 'DRM increases not decreases consumer value', such as by enabling people to rent content at a lower price than ownership, and lowering risks for content producers. While I'm impressed they responded, I can't say I'm impressed by lofty goals that might not be reached for years. The reality is, current DRM implementations often leave users with the bad end of the deal. What do you think? Should people give DRM manufacturers more time to overcome the challenges and get it right?"
renting content (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, if the consumer recognizes that as a value at all. So far the trend (at least in DRM systems used in internet distribution) has been clearly indicating that people generally don't want to rent their content.
The media companies certainly want this however, as it gives them more opportunities to get the consumer to pay for the same content multiple times, maybe in different formats or for different devices or uses.
Re:renting content (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:renting content (Score:5, Informative)
Give to your local library. Either media (originals, of course) or via donations. Your entire community will benefit.
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes, there's a benefit to having a wide and deep catalog. I will admit to using online music stores occasionally. Sometimes, you just need a copy of Ollie and the Nightingales singing "Just a Little Overcome" or a cut off of an obscure 999 album. Then, I turn to the marketplace, but not to DRM
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If you just fancy watching a decent film it's the laziest, cheapest way of doing it. Just press yes and $3 later you're watching the movie and you can as much as you like for 24 hours.
Re: (Score:2)
Granted DSL costs $15 a month in my area so if I were to download a $10 movie I would be spending $25 for one movie and $15 if you got three. You would have unlimited movie watching rights however.
For a cable movie, how much is it a month?
Re: (Score:2)
Remember VHS and Beta, besides making it more difficult for consumers to rent (because 1/2 of the tapes at the store were in the wrong format) it reduced title choice. For awhile, those of us with Beta machines weren't allowed to give the store our rental/buying money because Beta was losing. Also, originally, all video tapes were sold to the video stores at a price based on an $80 list price. Someone dared to think that there'd be money to be made if the video tapes were priced for sales and they were righ
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed true! However, the biggest difference is the fact that most people can and do listen to good music over and over again. Truly good music, memorable tunes, just don't get tiresome very fast. There are good movies, such as the Star Wars series Lord of the Rings and the many entertaining comedies and dramas. However, how many repeat plays will such a movie get compared to some of the Beatle songs or the classics? Another big difference is that music can accompany ot
Re:renting content (Score:5, Insightful)
Quite simply, this is bullshit. Some of the greatest (sorry, "High value") music and film was produced in an era when there was no DRM. The Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Charlie Chaplin, B.B King, Billie Holiday, Miles Davis, Martin Scorcese, Stanley Kubrick, even Steven Spielberg created their work in a pre-DRM era and somehow managed to sell their work.
Are we really to believe that people such as these would not pursue their art if there were not DRM? It doesn't even make sense from a hardcore businessperson's point-of-view. If someone stamps their feet and says "Fine, I'm not going to make my brilliant movie because I cannot use DRM," then there is no loss. Someone else with more sense will simply step up to the plate and make their movie instead, and profit from it. To think that one cannot make money on media without DRM is ridiculous. History has shown this. If there is money to made, somebody will do it.
Some will argue that less profit would be made without DRM due to piracy. Even if this were true, less profit does not equal no profit. But various studies have shown that piracy does not affect sales much, and nobody has ever been able to demonstrate that DRM prevents piracy. In fact, it is more likely that DRM reduces profit, because companies have to pay a "DRM tax" to the ridiculolus companies who make crappy DRM, like Macrovision. It's basically an extra cost that doesn't even prevent piracy.
Macrovision even think they can do a better job than Apple, and offered to "take responsibility" for Fairplay. This is hilarious. They are obviously jealous of Apple's success, and would love to be given access to Apple's products. Does anyone think that Macrovision could do a better job? Apple is one of the top software producers in the world. Macrovision is a bunch of hacks, a one-trick pony who has made a living from a stupid analog video hack. I doubt they are even competent to write software. We've all seen the kind of shit that bottom-feeding companies like this produce, and it ain't pretty. (think Sony rootkits)
Re:renting content (Score:4, Informative)
Re:renting content (Score:4, Interesting)
Sounds like crap to me. Deliberately authoring discs with "weak sectors"? Sounds like copy protection from the Commodore 64 era. Probably breaks DVD standards, too.
This is exactly the kind of shit I'm referring to when I talk about hacky software developers. When have they written some serious software that does something useful?
And, from the Wikipedia article:
So, it doesn't even work, does it?
Gee, that EXE file must work wonderfully with non-Windows systems.
Re: (Score:2)
So, it doesn't even work, does it?
it works against the novice, clueless users who dont realise it can be removed yes, but not the more technically inclined who can crack it, download a crack for it, or work around it using emulation software. :)
Its why i put 'successful' in quotes
Gee, that EXE file must work wonderfully with non-Windows systems.
Indeed, so well infact that it wont even let it *start* the game :D
Re:renting content (Score:4, Informative)
The problem being that the novice clueless users are probably not inclined to try and copy a disc in the first place, and just go buy them at the store. So, it does nothing except cost producers profits, because they have to pay to license stuff from Macrovision, when they could simply release the product without those costs.
Yeah, I got that, but I still think they remain a "one trick pony." the "SafeDisc" thing is really just the digital equivalent of their analog video hack. What are they going to do to "help Apple improve Fairplay? Have it include deliberate "bad samples" in AC3 files?
I was trying to highlight what a joke it was of Macrovision to think they had anything to offer Apple - who have some of the greatest talents in the software field, and produce a greater breadth and depth of software than pretty much any other company. In comparison, Macrovision reminds me of those idiots who write the drivers for hardware copy-protection dongles.
Yup, but Macrovision claim they want to "lead the industry" in DRM. Yet they've written software for a grand total of one platform, and are basically only still around because of the prevalence of their video hack. not really ones to be in a position of leadership over anything.
The funniest thing about their rant is that I actually know people who stopped buying DVDs, and started getting copied DVDs from friends because of Macrovision. You see, their DVD player is hooked up to their old TV via a VCR. This is because their TV only has an RF input. So DVDs look like utter crap. They eventually found out that this was because of Macrovision. But ripped DVDs that have been de-macrovisioned look perfectly fine.
I'm not sure how Macrovision can be considered "successful" when illegally ripped copies of products that use Macrovision look better than the purchased original. I guess they are successful in the way the mafia is successful - but even the mafia adds more value for end users than Macrovision.
HD DVD needs a new TV? So did DVD. (Score:2)
You see, their DVD player is hooked up to their old TV via a VCR. This is because their TV only has an RF input. So DVDs look like utter crap. They eventually found out that this was because of Macrovision.
You're right. A lot of people claim that HD DVD and Blu-ray Disc will fail because making them look good needs a new television set that supports connectors compatible with HDCP. But you have provided evidence that this was also the case for DVD-Video: it needed a new television set that supported connectors compatible with Macrovision analog copy distortion. Yet DVD-Video caught on anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What's your point? It could still be duplicated - and it was. What difference does it make if it is digital or not? Never heard of an audio cassette or videotape?
Re: (Score:2)
Compare a twentieth generation audio cassette or video tape copy and a twentieth generation CD copy and then get back to us and tell us that they're the same situation.
Might be with the world "digital" in it (Score:2)
Re:Might be with the world "digital" in it (Score:4, Interesting)
Analog success? I remember making a simple one transistor sync restoration circuit to circumvent the Macrovision VHS "protection" scheme. Other than the normal generation loss from the analog process, the VHS copies were just fine.
Re:renting content (Score:4, Insightful)
They also created their work in a pre-Internet era, in which essentially zero cost distribution to potentially hundreds of millions of people simply wasn't possible.
I'm no fan of DRM, but you're (intentionally?) ignoring the fact that copyright infringement is a lot easier and on scales orders of magnitude greater now than in the period you're talking about, even ignoring the (solved) problem of generational loss of quality.
Works both way... (Score:2)
They also did in a period before digital video and easy movie editing, before all digital pipe-lines that only require hi-quality inputs and then all the mixing stage can be done with common computer part all the way until the master data ready to be pressed, etc...
Internet isn't the only technology that has progressed. We live in a time were th
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be silly, back in those days you couldn't effectively duplicate your music. And even when audio/video tapes came around you could roughly duplicate it, but with notable loss in qual
Re: (Score:2)
How I stand on this issue is if they claim they are selling me a license to listen to the music on a particular format and they want to restrict me from making a backup for myself from that particular format then I damn well better be able to get a replacement if the original format gets broken. I am not talking about a free replacement, just
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that counts as much of an argument because during that era, the quality loss in making a copy was so great, and generational loss was great.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sonny Bono owns you (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Would you rather rent the hardware too? (Score:2)
DRM increases not decreases consumer value (Score:5, Insightful)
Consumers don't get the opportunity to "own" media, consumers get no ownership rights at all, we cant resell, get a refund etc like you can with a TV you buy.
Consumers get usage rights as granted by the copyright holder, DRM makes it easier to restrict these usage rights which takes us further away from what they would call "ownership".
Smells like fud to me.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
'DRM increases not decreases consumer value', such as by enabling people to rent content at a lower price than ownership
This is such bullshit. The price differential between "renting" and "owning" is almost purely profit, and is specifically enabled by DRM. This decreases value, by allowing them to charge us more for something that costs them the same to provide. How stupid do they think we are?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Rubbish. With the possible exception of refunds (although even then if you're firm enough you'll get one) you most certainly do have those rights when you buy content on a physical medium. There's nothing in copyright law that prevents one from reselling a CD, DVD or any other item which is protected by copyright. You're not allowed to distribute copie
Added value (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A new job for starving stunt men (Score:5, Funny)
I SAY LET THEM EAT CAKE. Let's take up a collection... and hire them to drive cars off cliffs
Re:A new job for starving stunt men (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A new job for starving stunt men (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess I just defined irony.
Translation from PR-Speak to English (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Spot on maybe, not for long though. How much music is out there? How many action movies? Comedies, TV series, cartoon, dramas...
Can you own all of it? Can you afford all of it? People instinctively want to own all that media since there has never been a single central, *reliable*, *compatible* and *immediate* source where they can go to and rent their media.
You buy it, since tommorow it may be out of stock and forever lost. You want to make sure
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One word: utility companies.
- Imagine perpetual copyrights and no public domain. While, at the same time, artists are forced to hand over their right to control what happens to their work.
I never said that, did I.
Re: (Score:2)
How else than by making everyone waive their rights to the music will you be able to concentrate everything to a single vendor? Because if people have any say in it, out of *the creators of all the music ever* there will definitely be two artists who don't want to be with the same vendor, or that want to create their ow
Renting makes no sense (Score:2, Insightful)
but then in real life, why rent videos to a lower prize, when it costs the same (or even less) for the content manufacturers to give a real copy?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The difference between buying and renting is who pays for storage. There are very few films I want to see more than twice, so I'd rather someone else pays for storage. Ideally, I would be able to download a film in an unencumbered format, transcode it to a format that suited my playback device (e.g. burn it to a DVD+RW as MPEG-2 or make a lower quality copy for a mobile device) then delete it when I'm done with it.
The idea of DRM seems completely pointless for video content, since I have no desire to hoa
see also "Fair Market" (Score:2)
It is. And in a fair market customers would put businesses with other business models out of business as their business. Sorry, that last use of 'business' was gratuitous.
Two issues that affect fair markets: cartels [mpaa.org] and regulatory capture [wikipedia.org].
"I wanna watch Sin-duh-weh-wuh again" (Score:2)
It's a waste of money (Score:3, Insightful)
OK, let's see (Score:2)
Can somebody explain me, how exactly DRM will increase the consumer value of
a particular music piece. Let's take http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony_No._9_(Beet
Symphony No. 9 as a very good music and well-known example.
Well, I'm not Steve Jobs and it seems that nobody will answer...
Re: (Score:2)
It requires large halls with good acoustics, lots of people involved, very precise
recording equipment. It costs far more money to record 9th of Bethoven than to record
punk-rock disk. Performance and recording of classical music is usually sponsored
by government or private institutions. In Germany for example, classical music recordings
costs sufficiently less than rock music recording. That means that every copy made
by people s
if you can't compete with free (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it does dramatically hurt. Please tell me the name of a Malaysian theatrical film made in the last ten years. Anyone? There's no point in making one because it would never post a profit, anyone that wants to see it can just buy a $1 bootleg.
Re: (Score:2)
For some businesses i.e. car manufacturing this might be $20000 per product.
Whereas for CD / DVD this tends toward zero.
So effectively everyone is competing with free.
Looking for a silver lining... (Score:5, Funny)
That's like being happy you got into a car accident because you met a nice nurse at the hospital.
Re: (Score:2)
These Guys Want You To Drink Their KoolAid (Score:2, Interesting)
who want to steal your right to own your own copy of a song, and share music with your friends at
parties? (Things even our parents and grandparents could freely do when they were growing up).
You buy a copy of a song or album, and play it all you want, and move it to another player for jogging,
or to play in your car, or as a backup on your computer. But Macrovision and the music companies would
deny you any of t
Prices wont come down, they'll go up. (Score:2)
Why in the world would the prices go down with DRM? DVD's when they first came out were not copyable, were not downloadable and cost a lot more than they do now...
Now they're cheaper..
Should we presume that they are cheaper because they are downloadable, copyable and so forth?
I know the market is saturated with dvds but still. Frankly i think the piracy is a way keep their prices fair. If they eliminate piracy, the skyies
Re: (Score:2)
Just because there is no alternative for a particular product, doesn't mean there is no alternative.
Example: A Mercedes SL 55AMG is nearly $100,000, but the high price doesn't mean that people have to go without cars.
Re: (Score:2)
Mackerelvision (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
But in the meantime, dear Macrovision (Score:2)
Facts (Score:5, Informative)
2. DRM doesn't actually work. Every single form of DRM from CSS to WDRM to Fairplay has been in one form or another broken or circumvented. Including the many methods (and millions of dollars that went into) CD and video game protection schemes
3. Despite the ability to circumvent DRM, media says continue to increase.
4. DRM often attempts to circumvent fair use rights preventing the social order.
5. The introduction of the DMCA was a *crutch* introduced by lobbyists to do what DRM could not do.
6. DRM vendors have no souls.
7. Media studios leverage their market share to unfairly harm competition (see: payola).
8. Media studios will boldly lie about revenue and other statistics to gain power over citizens of "free" nations.
9. I ran out of facts.
Tom
Re:Facts (Score:4, Insightful)
Stop pretending it's in our interests (Score:4, Interesting)
Problem: I don't want DRM to "meter my usage rights". In other words, I don't want DRM to say "you own this" "you rent that". By the very nature of DRM, I don't own it. In my eyes there is one and only one solution: Anything I am renting has DRM on it. Anything I own does not, or by definition, I don't own it.Correction: Consumers who want to use content across all of their entertainment areas can pay more than those who just want to consume it only on a single device. This was never about making things cheaper.
The entire concept of this is complete bullshit. You buy content. You own it. You do whatever the hell you want with it. There is no free or convenient consumer market for "only using content on a certain device". No market like that is ever in the consumer's best interests.You know... if I could buy a shirt that fits any size body, like I can buy hats or socks that do, I'd be happier with my shirts (in case I grow, or I want to give it to my friends, or I don't want to fuss about with shirt sizes, or whatever, it's just more convenient to have one-size-fits-all shirts). Digital media is great, because it is one-size-fits-all! Yay! Now why would you use the phrase "doom all consumers to a one-size-fits-all situation"? One-size-fits-all is good for consumers, if it's feasible. And it is.There is no such thing as open DRM. There is only different shades of interoperability. So you can get FairPlay vs Zune going at each other, or you can unify them into a single DRM model which is interoperable. That's better for consumers, yes, but it isn't open. DRM, by design, can never be open, because as soon as it is, it can be cracked. In other words, you may get the same DRM working on Zune, iPod, Windows and Mac, but you will never get it working in open source software (unless it's been hacked, like DVD).The delay, I assume, being from the corporate shits who can't stand to see their content go on a format without DRM. What about the years of setbacks in products such as PS3 and Vista just to get the overblown and insane DRM specs working?
BS arguments (Score:2)
"We don't give a shit about our customers and we don't want to see them as anything more than cows to be economically milked, but we can't let them know that because if they do find out, they have a tendency to jump the fences we're trying to build around them. The only thing we care about is money. We don't care about our own lives, the lives of anyone else, or anything else. The only thing that matters is getting as much money as possible. We don't even care if we
cut the bull (Score:2)
That statement takes advantage of the nearsighted. DRM's purpose is to maximize proffit, and to do that you have to maximize the money you squeeze out of the consumer. You cannot maximize proffit AND provide the customer with a better value, the two goals are opposed to each other.
Yes, DRM allows a consumer to rent content for less, but it also requires them to rent it every time they wa
Jobs didn't call for the death of DRM... (Score:5, Insightful)
If, like most people reading this, you consider DRM a negative for the consumer, then you'd naturally think DRM-free licensing would obviously lead to the death of DRM, at least for music. But if, like Macrovision's CEO, you claim that DRM actually adds value for the consumer, then you should have nothing to fear from competition with non-DRMed sales. If a consumer thinks it is a better value to rent music with DRM, then they will do so regardless of weather music available for sale elsewhere has DRM or not.
The idea that DRMed music cannot be successfully sold when non-DRMed music is also available is only valid if you assume that DRM has a negative impact on the consumer large enough to overwhelm any positives it might offer (like the ability to facilitate online rentals). The fact that Macrovision's CEO equates allowing DRM-free sales opportunities to denying DRMed sales opportunities, while asserting that DRM is a positive for the consumer, would seem to indicate that he is either arguing dishonestly or hasn't really thought this out (or both).
That said, Macrovision's CEO's position actually suggests a compromise (if we assume that Macrovision's CEO is honest in his assertion that he believes DRM adds value for the consumer, and that decision makers at the big 4 agree with him, both of which are far from certain imho):
If Apple were to license the RIAA (and it's international equivalents) the right to sub-license FairPlay DRM to anyone they liked, in return for the RIAA's members giving Apple license to sell all their music DRM-free under terms no worse than their current ~70% cut, then everybody wins (after a fashion).
Apple gets to sell music DRM-free, the RIAA&co get to sell/rent DRMed music for the iPod under whatever terms they like, and the customer gets to have their choice.
'Difficult Challenges' too difficult for them! (Score:2, Interesting)
In the letter they acknowledge the 'difficult challenges' of implementing DRM that is truly 'interoperable and open'
Clearly too bloody hard for them. I got two new DVDs last week, was pretty happy with them. Both use RipGuard, meaning none of my Linux machines, using XINE, MPlayer or VLC can play the damned things.
The sad fact is, these are fairly obscure UK TV shows, and basically, short of piracy, this is now the only way for me to get them on DVD. So what I have to do now is rip them to watch them on
Please, Apple... (Score:4, Insightful)
ie. "Please, Apple. Give us the keys to your iPod and let us make money from your copy protection scheme while you abandon it" Huh?
DRM lowers prices? Since when? (Score:3, Insightful)
Just put DRM on rentals then (Score:2)
If I rent something, I have no prob
Wait for better DRM, you say? (Score:2)
I don't like DRM. I'm not happy with the concept. I don't like where copyrights have gone in the last 200 years. The first 120 years were okay.
Life is far far far too short to be a complete fool spending my time, effort, money, and resources trying to make something as simple as looking at a picture, watching a movie, listening to music, or reading a book, into a huge wrestling match between me and my electronics. See, I've got a life. Not enough to stop me from making this comment, but enough that I'm n
Like it matters (Score:2)
The U.S. isn't governed by the people. When our opinions differ from big business, big business lobbying will win.
It's pretty clear what Slashdotter opinion is, so why is the some old question being asked again when it certainly won't change anything?
of course (Score:2)
Of course they would say this. DRM is what they sell.
how about... (Score:3, Interesting)
Handy Translation Guide (Score:2)
owning information (Score:2)
The only way we've been able to support information ownership is the one structure with exclusive right to control the army (the government) also works to enforce the interests of businesses to own information.
While this hellish compact may have made sense in the past, we now exist in a world with near-instant
Re:DRM adds customer value ??? (Score:4, Insightful)
While the example may be a good bit overextended, it makes the point no less applicable. Selling a nonphysical product at the price of a physical one and then limiting what can be done with it lowers the value that is already seen as near nil by the majority of the public.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Parasites versus pirates (Score:5, Insightful)
And on a side note, if we have a system where DRM is needed to protect Kevin Federline or Britney, it begs the question of why lock up turds in a vault anyway.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Copyrightability varies per type of work (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The National Film Board of Canada has produced some real stinkers, too. I don't think taxpayer funding for movies is really the way to go. I think there's room for some public financing for arts, but it does not guarantee quality. Thank God the technology for making movies is getting cheaper, is all I can say. There may sti
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I am one of those "nonexistant artists who can't punch in" I don't punch in, but if I work 8 hours, I get payed for 8 hours. I also do speculative work, but I don't think my economic security should be put entirely in jeopardy just because what I create is something p
Re: (Score:2)
Now I admit that if original works that are expensive to produce (movies) were heavily pirated, then no one could afford to make them and they would generally not come into being.
So how did movies get made before the existence of all the extra revenue that these new technologies bring? I believe that movies were being made before the invention of VHS, yet alone DVD. I understand that even before TV there were movies being made. Some might say that some of the best movies of all time were made before the fi
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Or is
Re:If you are asking that question on /. (Score:5, Informative)
DRM, in contrast, says 'you have paid for this material, now you may do any of this small list of things (which are usually smaller than the list of things copyright law allows you to do anyway) with it.' Do you see the difference? The GPL (and copyright law) are exclusive, while DRM is inclusive. You can use GPL'd (or copyrighted) material for anything that the GPL (or copyright law) does not expressly prohibit. You can only use DRM'd material in the way that the DRM vendor authorised; no transcoding, no playing it on unauthorised devices, and often no fair use rights, such as extracting clips for academic discussion or using a music track as the sound track to your (not for distribution) home video.
[1] In the case of the GPL, this is anyone who has a copy of the code and accepts the GPL.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:DRM solution... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:DRM solution... (Score:4, Insightful)
It would really suck if my car got stolen. That's why I go to the effort of carrying a key with me everywhere I go to protect it.
It would also really suck if my house got broken into. Or my bank account. These things are so important that it's worth carrying around a piece of metal or plastic just for that wherever I go.
If someone copied my music off my iPod... well frankly that would be between them and the RIAA. In other words, I as a consumer have no interest in protecting my music from being stolen (especially when it's being protected from myself), therefore I have no interest in carrying a dongle to access my music.
Furthermore, my car, my house and my bank account are probably the 3 most expensive things I own, so once again I go to such lengths to protect them. If I am forced to go to such lengths to protect something like my music, then why not have a dongle to activate my toaster, my chair or my shirt?
As with all DRM, the issue here is that unlike other forms of security (where I go to as much or as little lengths as I wish to protect myself) this is about me being forced to go to exactly the lengths they tell me to go to to protect them. This is a hopeless solution, and I don't think consumers would even be stupid enough to go along with it unlike other forms of DRM.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. While, as a rational thinker I prefer evolution, I understand the Intelligent Design point of view. It's false. This is a boolean value, not a color.
Society has an interest in as many consumers as possible having access to as much art and information as possible. This is literally equal to the interest of the individual consumer. There is no "right to ma
Re: (Score:2)
And it doesn't even do that, since all DRM can be defeated. Anyone with the slightest degree of technical skill can rip every DVD they get from Netflix, yet the world has not come to an end. It's contract law combined with people's honesty and/or laziness that makes rental possible.
An enemy of the information society.
Exactly. It's baffling to me that we're even considering crippling the technology industry which has contributed a staggering amount to hu