Posts by robbery
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
It's like saying an Mp3 won't play in an Mp3 player.
apparently its not an mp3, it's an AAC.
hey man, don't shoot the messenger :)
if you don't like AAC and all its attached issues then use your spending power to buy the alternative. don't be supporting the people who sell products you don't like.
you guys have got to get more aggressive as consumers. stop bitching about it on your blogs and demand satisfaction for your dollar from the companies you buy off directly. -
note other dvds do play fine in my laptop it was just a couple of cheekily protected ones.
-
Maybe I'm lucky but I use the laptop for DVDs all the time without issue.
yeah I was surprised myself, hadn't really been playing a lot of dvds. 2 in the same week wouldn't mount. I was impressed.
But can I transfer an iTunes sourced MP3 from my IPod to my phone? No...
that's like saying my 8 track cartridges won't play in my cd player.
not to say you shouldn't be able to play one in the other but we've had that format problem for as long as they've had formats.
and its completely the same, my laptop has a screen and a dvd drive, it should be able to play a dvd, I might not want to take a tv screen and a dvd player with me. just like you might only want to take your phone on a walk with you.we view film piracy with a degree more seriousness, and accept its constrictions with less indignation for the moment, no reason we should but we do and it highlights the disproportionate response to music drm, other than music drm engineers are shit at their job.
-
I don't see much difference to the music situation tbh.
a difference in magnitude of objection to it. note simon's response above to dvd drm compared to russells grumpy bulldog response to music drm.
I couldn't even get a couple of dvds to mount in my laptop let alone use clever tools to get around their drm. but in a dvd play, perfecto.
-
Because the DVD does what you want it to do..it plays on a player, any player (with regional limits but that is a device to defeat parallel importing and is so weak most players now ignore it).
well not entirely true. some dvds won't play in my laptop, but they will play in my dvd player. clever that, cos in my laptop I can rip dvds and put em on the net for other people, but in my dvd player I can only play.
DRM in music does exactly the opposite.
aside from music code writers being obviously the less talented of the bunch (probably cos they're paid less) in that they can't seem to get it right, the concept and intent is the same.
The only difference is we people to have an acceptance that copying movies is bad and that movie producers installing drm is fair enough, but we think that copying music is ok, (even though it is essentially the same thing) and while some grumpy old bulldogs can't think the concept through past drm=bad,If I buy a dvd and it doesn't play in my machine I take it back and lay a level of obnoxiousness on the retailer.
I'd do the same if I bought a music file that didn't play, or a game that didn't install. I wouldn't use it as a justification for free for all, or piracy. The content providers have to be responsible for their product and as a consumer people should deal directly with them, demand satisfaction, not use it as as a lazy ass excuse to break the law.
That said, its all null and void under an isp subscription scheme. -
jenner mentioned drm in his speech.
he said dvd have quite substantial drm in them, no one complains about that. its pretty transparent for the use of a dvd though, put it in your dvd play, watch it, put it in your book case and forget it.
he wasn't anti drm at all, but he did say that under the isp subscription model it would be irrelevant, people could file share all they wanted cos it will trickle down through their isp fees. -
But how long have these things been argued and, like DRM, battled against by the major label recording industry. Like the death of DRM, the RIAA and other associated bodies have fought tooth and nail against these for half a decade, meanwhile alienating customers. I wonder how much it's actually cost them and the acts they represent.
sorry simon, can you expand, I don't get you're point,
are you saying that since these issues have been discussed for 5 years that the conversation should be dropped? I've seen the last 5 years as looking for a workable solution. Jenner was quite clear that he thought the ISPs were in the wrong here and saying it very clearly. its taken a while for people to get that concept clear in their heads.I can see how it would be boring. My eyes rolled up when
Russell jumped in with his hobby horse of "no drm" Luddite comment, wasting valuable time which his highly educated guests could have used. (in a perfect world the no drm comment should mean "I want you to stop making bad drm that intrudes on my fair use, and get it right in a transparent and non invasive way", rather than "yes I do want to freely copy media files and you're spoiling my party", or the old granny vibe it seems to be delivered with like the words itself are the problem rather the concept of control media ...but.... yawn)uhhh..yes, I think Jenner's argument advancing this, and he wasn't alone, was published as long ago as 2004 and shot down by the labels who were battling, still are but with less and less vigour, the notion as ridiculous and who refuse to give up the dead model.
The ISP argument has been gaining momentum and makes sense. it is a viable way forward.
the 'labels' you mention are the major labels, those same people bought out by mafia run funeral homes and parking lots, as distinctly different from the swarm of indie labels presently representing a large cut of music.
personally I think the music people will have less effect on this than the film and tv people and music will probably just ride on their coat tails.The isp argument is just a variation of the subscription argument where your subscription or part of it is paid to your isp and forwarded to content owners.
-
I was pleased to see the discussion of charging the ISP's for access to online music
although it was hardly touched on on the program peter jenner's has a lot of really intelligent things to say on the ISP thing. I was lucky enough to hear him deliver a speech on it and have a chat to him a couple of days before the program.
He said ISPs have been charging customers for access to content but not passing any of that income derived from access to content on to the people who own it. ie you pay substantially more the more your download, much more than it costs to deliver the service to you so there for they are collection money for the amount of content you consume but essentially keeping it all. Peter said he felt that ISPs knew this and were riding it as long as they could before someone forced the issue.
It is starting to be forced in the UK with the govt insisting that ISPs and content owners get together and sort it out.How a content owner would get to receive their 20 cents has yet to be establish but there are many possibilities ranging from the majors taking it all and keeping to pages with content on it sending a msg to an aggrigator when its content is accessed and increasing the credit on the appropriate account.
some figures.
Peter said in the UK that if 1- 3 pounds per month of an individual's internet connection fee was put toward paying for content then the combined total based on the number of people currently with accounts in the UK would equal the present combined income from music sales. about 600 million pounds if I remember correctly.
The point being that a small easy payment makes the problem go away. no need for illegal anything any more cos everyone's being taken care of.Those figures don't take into account other content like films and tv though but its a good idea and a step in the right direction.
-
But while there's more music available than ever, the value of sales falls every year: maybe people don't want to buy music any more.
Are implying that they want to steal it, or implying they're no longer interested in it?
-
Ok, I get that theres a "mistake" and the third part of the podcast is bogus.....
But the first part is 2:31 long, and the second is 9.05...
I'm assuming something is missing rather than the program's been shortened :)
Yeah the pod cast links are missing the second half of the discussion and simons pounds national radio thing.
They are on youtube after the simon pound article but that segment is missing from the podcast links.