From: Bollers (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Jan 06 2000 - 21:31:21 PST
Basically, the studios don't want to have to make
> >the effort to protect their businesses ... and are
> >happy enough to inconvenient consumers with such things as regional
> >coding and copy protection, in effect making everyone else do their
He makes a good point in that the studios are perhaps just as concerned
about consumer piracy as they are ...also... about losing the opportunity to
rent and sell the same content repeatedly to the same consumer, thanks to
inefficient content delivery methods.
I understand the concern of protecting intellectual property rights. But I
am tired of the one-way licensing agreement we must accept when we purchase
music or video. Consumers pay for a license, but the media is transitory.
If the media is destroyed ... so is the consumer's license.
Licenses for real-time art should be purchased via a one-time licensing fee.
Should the media it is stored on become lost or destroyed, there should be a
nominal fee (at most) to refresh the license. The infrastructure exists to
track licenses, short-term OR long-term (rental or purchase), but you don't
see the industry worrying about that.
Incidentally, I helped Toshiba introduce DVD to Hollywood in the mid 90's.
It was fun to watch executives squirm over the promise of DVD. They
demanded Macrovision (specifically), but it was difficult to implement on
DVD and basically, behind the scenes this problem held up the DVD roll out
for at least a year.
David Alan Boller
Organic Machines LLC
9419 Flicker Ave
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 19 2000 - 15:03:04 PST