5.
 
Re: No subject
Feb 1, 2006, 14:37
5.
Re: No subject Feb 1, 2006, 14:37
Feb 1, 2006, 14:37
 
That never works

Untrue. There was some DRM method that the media companies wanted last year. Every single consumer electronics manufacturer told them to go fuck themselves.

Of course, now we have different crap that will accomplish the same thing and the CEMs are going with the flow...

Like Google and Chinese censorship.

You do realize that Google was one of the last search firms there, right? Yahoo, MSN, etc. have all been there for awhile. Your point here is still valid, but I'm tired of people acting like Google was the first one here.

I thought the Republican Congress and Administration were *against* regulation

Ok... two issues here.

First, most of the DRM measures are not being enforced by legislation -- they're being put in due to pressure from the media conglomerates. In fact, I'd be hard pressed to think of a single piece of legislation that's passed since the DMCA that is relevant.

Second, the current Republican leadership is against any regulation that's not pro-business, particularly big business. You figure it out from there. (And, to be fair, you're hard pressed to find anyone in Washington, of either party, that's not kowtowing to the media companies)

DRM will be cracked, blackmarket hardware will flourish--it'll be like the days of prohibition. Maybe the mob will get involved.

Keep dreaming.

I predict the first entertainment companies to see the light and dump all this bullshit will make a killing.

The problem is that there's a huge, astoundingly large, barrier to entry here. And anyone who doesn't "play by the rules" gets shut out. The only way this could happen is for one of the existing beheomoths (Viacom, Disney, Sony, etc) to suddenly decide to ditch all the DRM. Which is very doubtful, and possibly impossible given how much cross-licensing goes on.

Or, alternatively, for Congress to pass some legislation definitively etching out consumer's rights. I wouldn't hold your breath.

Date
Subject
Author
1.
Feb 1, 2006Feb 1 2006
3.
Feb 1, 2006Feb 1 2006
2.
Feb 1, 2006Feb 1 2006
4.
Feb 1, 2006Feb 1 2006
 5.
Feb 1, 2006Feb 1 2006
  Re: No subject
6.
Feb 1, 2006Feb 1 2006
7.
Feb 1, 2006Feb 1 2006