Thu Oct 26, 2006 3:14 pm

And all along I thought that the "DVD John" was a precursor to the iPod Toilet Paper dispenser. Who'da thunk?

And BTW, DVD Jon did not meet with Steve Jobs. Puh-lease. This little pipsqueak has delusions of grandeur that read like a bad Star Wars script.

Thu Oct 26, 2006 9:00 pm

Mikuro, you forget however that the corporations do have rights. Who's to say whose takes precedence? I personally think this twerp is going to rot in hell. Ok, maybe not in hell, but maybe in jail for all sorts of crimes. He's reverse engineered software and now created a new use for it that he can commercially profit from. Uh, hello, that's basically tantamount to promoting theft and enabling piracy. It's not about Fair Use, this guy is an egomaniac who wants to see his name in lights.

Let him. On the police blotter.

It's not about the "artist" as many would have us believe. If it was, they would stop signing with labels altogether and go out and give away their music. It's about thieves wanting something for nothing. Plain and simple. It's tantamount to counterfeiting. And we all know it.

It's just that some people seem to think that stealing is ok. I'm just not one of them.

Thu Oct 26, 2006 9:51 pm

Wow guest - you obviously don't know recording history.

	Anonymous wrote:
	When we went from 45" to LPs, new format dictated we had to repurchase music. When LPs went and CDs in, again, we had repurchase music.

We did not go from 45s to LPs - they were developed at roughly the same time in the late forties. There was an overlap with 78s, which will still produced in some parts of the world until the early sixties. When CDs turned up, we weren't forced to go out and buy replacements - it's not as if the LPs suddenly vanished or became unplayable. I still have hundreds and I can still listen to most(!) of them

	Quote:
	We are finally at a time when we should *not* have to repurchase music, and we *should* be able to transfer our music to different equipment we own without being penalized.

Assuming that you're American, you've got it lucky. It is still a criminal offence in this country, for example, to "format-shift". Using an iPod, although the situation is recognised by the government as daft, is stilltechnically illegal.

I agree - we should be able to purchase something once only. But any compulsion to buy it more than once relies partly on a susceptibility to marketing.

Fri Oct 27, 2006 11:43 am

	Tiger wrote:
	It's not about the "artist" as many would have us believe. If it was, they would stop signing with labels altogether and go out and give away their music. It's about thieves wanting something for nothing. Plain and simple. It's tantamount to counterfeiting. And we all know it. It's just that some people seem to think that stealing is ok. I'm just not one of them.

Oversimplification is a beautiful thing. You haven't seen how the rights of the corporations are being defended. Go subscribe to the This Week in Law podcast and listen to it. In the podcast is a great few minutes of description of how the RIAA goes about trying to take money from lower income people who have downloaded music (yes, illegally). They may have started with the facts on their side, but their tactics and those of the music and film industries have been shady, filled with greed, and downright absurd.

I agree 100% that theft is wrong. However, I also agree that gouging people multiple times for one item and completely trying to derail any change based on technological advances is also wrong. The music and movie industries would like you to have to purchase DVD's and CD's if they really had their way. Forget the fact that with online downloads you can purchase the songs you want at a slightly fairer price and ignore the rest of the crap that makes up a typical album. Forget the convenience and the fact that you can take it with you in your iPod.

Think about the types of copy protection Sony was trying to put on their CD's. In effect, the ONLY way you could ever listen to that music, had they succeeded, would be to listen to it sitting down at a stereo or computer with a CD player. In essence, they want to dictate to you how and when you listen to your music. Is that reasonable? Is that a sustainable business model for satisfied customers when we know what the alternatives are?

This isn't the 80's or even the 90's. Technology is changing and giving choices, and if corporations refuse to embrace it to take advantage of new opportunities, but instead choose to make their customers into adversaries, then people like DVD John, like him or not, are going to force the issue and move the debate into the spotlight. And THAT is what is important, and that's why I don't really care if he's breaking the law or not. If it gets people to try to work out something that is fair for all parties and that is legal, then good for him.

Sun Oct 29, 2006 11:30 pm

	geoduck wrote:
	For far too long the rights of corporations have been put above those of people. In this case the recording companies are claiming rights to prevent both the Consumer and the Artist from doing what they want so they can increase their profit. Denying one to use the music they bought the way they want, and the other to receive fair recompense for their work.

Ian Kearns, deputy director of the IPPR (Institute of Public Policy Research in the UK), recently said: "Millions of Britons copy CDs on to their home computers, breaking copyright laws every day. British copyright law is out of date.

"When it comes to protecting the interests of copyright holders, the emphasis the music industry has put on tackling illegal distribution, and not prosecuting for personal copying, is right. But it is not the industry's job to decide what rights consumers have. That is the job of Government."

Hear, hear. Nobody wants monolothic government which strangles everything that we want to do. But, left to their own devices, large corporations generally will do what they can to restrict liberty and competition.

Fri Nov 17, 2006 2:28 pm

This falls in along the same lines, IMO: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061117-8241.html.

If you legally purchase a DVD, I say you have the right to view the contents of that DVD on any equipment that you own. Don't TELL me that I have to REPURCHASE it again to watch it on my iPod (or Zune-for as long as it's around)! I have a computer that is quite capable of backing up my DVD purchases as well as my music purchases, and converting them to different formats, for me to view as I see fit. I do not want anybody telling me where and when to watch my purchase.

DVD Jon was Robin Hood, and is now trying to replace the Sheriff of Nottingham. I also think that he has gone too far in trying to capitalize on his decryption skills.

Remember, the people should make the Laws-not corporations! Corporations are there only to make profits for their shareholders, that is their first and primary goal-if they say otherwise they are LYING. And of course they are going to try and get laws passed that will increase their profits, it's in their best interests - not the consumers. Seriously, would you invest in a company that doesn't turn a profit (if so, please send me a PM, as I have just the opportunity for you ).

DRM as it stands today is Digital "Restrictions" Management not "Rights". Let your Congressional representatives and Senators know how you feel. And if they don't listen, vote them out (they hate when that happens).