Comment Re:DRM has both good and bad sides... (Score 1) 403
"Movies cost tens -- sometimes hundreds -- of millions of dollars to create. No movie studio would ever produce a $300+ million epic like Lord of the Rings if it knew it would be copied and freely distributed the instant it was released. Now, in a perfect world where everyone could be trusted to never give away such content for free, there'd be no need for DRM. However, since there's a vocal group of nutcases who insist on thinking they have some free "right" to the fruits of other's labor without compensating them for it, we get crap like CSS and DRM. Gee, thanks Mr. Pirate. We're all so grateful."
This tired argument is often used to condemn those who copy movies. However, the truth is that it doesn't hold water. The studios want REGION CODES, CSS, and other forms of DIGITAL RESTRICTION MANAGEMENT (DRM) so they can make more money. If all DVDs would play anywhere in the world, they would have people importing them from cheap countries or selling them before the theatricla release in a country (since movies are seldom released simultaneously). They want you to believe that pirates are to blame. But the truth is that they lose very little money to professional piracy, and even less to casual copying. Why? Because they wouldn't have sold any copies there to begin with. If I can rent from Netflix and burn the discs to dual layer Verbatims for $2 a piece, I will do that for movies I really like (which is not many). If I can't copy them, I will simply watch them and forget them. Copies don't equal lost sales. your argument that pirates are to blame for CSS and DRM is naive and amateurish. You can do better.
You also need to explain for those of us with brains how replication == theft. No analogies with stealing cars or handbags or any other physical things, please. I would also ask you why you equate intangible ideas with property. The notion that ideas can be owned is just as ridiculous as equating replication with theft. The original still exists. Nothing was stolen. My computer just decrypted the content and created an exact copy. If you want an analogy, how about this. Someone creates the first Star Trek Replicator and sells it cheap so everyone has one. Car company accuses you of theft for creating an exact copy. Is that theft?
Or is the business model of creating and maintaining artificial scarcity obsolete?
This tired argument is often used to condemn those who copy movies. However, the truth is that it doesn't hold water. The studios want REGION CODES, CSS, and other forms of DIGITAL RESTRICTION MANAGEMENT (DRM) so they can make more money. If all DVDs would play anywhere in the world, they would have people importing them from cheap countries or selling them before the theatricla release in a country (since movies are seldom released simultaneously). They want you to believe that pirates are to blame. But the truth is that they lose very little money to professional piracy, and even less to casual copying. Why? Because they wouldn't have sold any copies there to begin with. If I can rent from Netflix and burn the discs to dual layer Verbatims for $2 a piece, I will do that for movies I really like (which is not many). If I can't copy them, I will simply watch them and forget them. Copies don't equal lost sales. your argument that pirates are to blame for CSS and DRM is naive and amateurish. You can do better.
You also need to explain for those of us with brains how replication == theft. No analogies with stealing cars or handbags or any other physical things, please. I would also ask you why you equate intangible ideas with property. The notion that ideas can be owned is just as ridiculous as equating replication with theft. The original still exists. Nothing was stolen. My computer just decrypted the content and created an exact copy. If you want an analogy, how about this. Someone creates the first Star Trek Replicator and sells it cheap so everyone has one. Car company accuses you of theft for creating an exact copy. Is that theft?
Or is the business model of creating and maintaining artificial scarcity obsolete?
