Burning downloaded TV & Movies
- Thread starter JediKnightButler
- Start date
I thought we were having a nice conversation and making good arguments based on facts.No, my mistake. I'm a brainwashed weirdo.
Thanks for pointing that out.
Region protection really is a whole 'nother kettle of fish. I will absolutely agree with you that it's wrong, though.
Small White Car said:
Admittedly, I made a bit of a snappy comment; but for someone interesting in having a nice conversation, you did a good job just there of ignoring everything else I wrote! I'll apologize for the comment, but I think I'm understandably a bit annoyed that a thread about the industry wide problem of DRM is being sidelined by this sudden focus on Apple.
It's an anti-consumer restriction. You can blame the content providers for being touchy about DRM. Specifically, you can blame Sony, Disney, Fox, Lionsgate and their affiliated companies.
Fortunately, Paramount, Universal and Warner Brothers have not proven to be so short sighted.
This post started it off down that road. Given that there's an open letter from Steve Jobs on the Apple website pleading with the recording industry to dump DRM and that his company stood up to NBC Universal at the cost of having their shows temporarily removed from iTunes, I think that Apple is the hardly the problem here.
I don't see that post as what really started this thread down that path; what Stone_Cold_Sisko said is absolutely correct and is representative of DRM at large. As I believe I've mentioned in the past, I look very poorly on that Jobs letter because Apple's actions at large do not reflect the opinions that he gives there... specifically, their desire for affecting hardware locks on people.
It would be as if you were required to buy an Apple brand CD player to play music content you burned from iTunes. The reason you don't have to do that is because CD players were already ubiquitous at the time that iTMS started up and MP3 players were not; digital video players (that do more then just record broadcast content) are currently not so they're able to push into that market. But their goal of using DRM to drive up their own hardware sales are pretty clear.
In many ways, I actually consider that to be worse then not letting your content into another platform at all. The latter shows that you're not letting it off because you're scared of losing control over your content (which I believe is wrong, but oh well) whereas the former shows you're using it to drive a business model. Something like Netflix has it's own problems, because you can't actually own any content (though they make no illusions to this fact as they present themselves as a rental company) but they also show that they are attempting to be platform agnostic... there's a Netflix brand box you can buy, you can stream on a 360, I believe there's a third party LG box that will support Netflix as well.... this is much much better then forcing consumers into buying hardware from a specific company. The precedent being set by Netflix is one of openness; the one by Apple and a few other content providers is closed.
Which do you think is better for the consumer?
It would be as if you were required to buy an Apple brand CD player to play music content you burned from iTunes. The reason you don't have to do that is because CD players were already ubiquitous at the time that iTMS started up and MP3 players were not; digital video players (that do more then just record broadcast content) are currently not so they're able to push into that market. But their goal of using DRM to drive up their own hardware sales are pretty clear.
In many ways, I actually consider that to be worse then not letting your content into another platform at all. The latter shows that you're not letting it off because you're scared of losing control over your content (which I believe is wrong, but oh well) whereas the former shows you're using it to drive a business model. Something like Netflix has it's own problems, because you can't actually own any content (though they make no illusions to this fact as they present themselves as a rental company) but they also show that they are attempting to be platform agnostic... there's a Netflix brand box you can buy, you can stream on a 360, I believe there's a third party LG box that will support Netflix as well.... this is much much better then forcing consumers into buying hardware from a specific company. The precedent being set by Netflix is one of openness; the one by Apple and a few other content providers is closed.
Which do you think is better for the consumer?
Similar threads
