>> understand that it's precisely those limitations that has even allowed
>> them to get the content in the first place (prime example BBC iPlayer or
>> at the extreme hiring DVDs).
>
> Not always. And even if they were the reasons, it's not at all clear
> that removing DRM does harm.

Ermm, the BBC makes a huge amount of profit from selling programs to 
foreign broadcasters and content on DVD.  Anyone who removes the DRM 
from iPlayer programs is one person who will be much less likely to pay 
to watch that content again.  I'm not saying everyone who removes DRM is 
doing harm, but some are - the ones who would have otherwise paid again 
for the content, either directly or indirectly.

The question is, if publishers gave an option to remove DRM (for free) 
when you bought the material, would they make as much money?  It seems 
like almost every publisher thinks they wouldn't, which is why they 
don't offer such an offer, and actually *spend* a lot of money to try 
and "improve" the DRM.  Surely they are not all wrong?

>> you are not buying the right to unlimited personal use.  If you were
>> then you'd likely have to pay more.
>
> You keep saying that, and while logical, you have not supported
> it.

It's obvious if you think about it though.  At the extreme when you rent 
a film (or pay-per-view TV or BBC license fee etc) you pay a relatively 
small sum for a product that is limited in the number of times you are 
allowed to view it or the length of time you can watch it for.  It would 
be crazy if it were legal to then use that content forever for any 
personal use.  IANAL but I'm pretty sure you'd get sued for this.

Post a reply to this message

> Digital content is another matter...

That relies on people being honest and it taking a certain amount of 
skill/knowledge to duplicate.

Post a reply to this message

>    Unless the TV searches for the shapes in the image (as an MPEG-4 codec
> would) and then interpolates those shapes. I would be surprised if it was
> that advanced.

Yes, the "genuine" 120 Hz and 240 Hz TVs do this (even 60 Hz TVs have 
had "noise reduction" schemes for ages that use similar motion 
estimation techniques).

There is however a much cheaper way to do it that is almost as good. 
That is showing the image at normal 60 Hz, but for each frame only 
putting the backlight on for 50% of the time (at double the brightness). 
  This is called "black frame insertion" and makes any motion look much 
smoother.  With LED backlights this is easy to do.

Post a reply to this message

> You can, they are call "3D ready".

Oh, do they really take 120 Hz data and give 60 Hz to each eye?  I 
assumed they took 60 Hz and gave 30 Hz to each eye - will need to look 
into that...

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Apparently some people think I'm weird because I still buy all my music
> on CD. What can I say? I like holding the physical object in my hands,
> looking at the cover art, and being able to play it on a real hi-fi
> system (i.e., not my PC).

Quite apart from all that, it's often the cheapest option (depending on what
you're buying, and assuming you actually want most of the tracks on the album).

no-brainer really, more than twice the price for a stripped-out lossy version?
Pff.

Post a reply to this message

On 21/01/2011 09:05 AM, scott wrote:

>> Not always. And even if they were the reasons, it's not at all clear
>> that removing DRM does harm.
>
> The question is, if publishers gave an option to remove DRM (for free)
> when you bought the material, would they make as much money?

If you wanted to split hairs, actually removing the DRM doesn't do any 
harm by itself. It's what you do afterwards that potentially causes 
harm. (Presumably the only reason you removed it was to do something you 
couldn't do otherwise...)

> Surely they are not all wrong?

That's a rather weak argument, isn't it?

>>> you are not buying the right to unlimited personal use. If you were
>>> then you'd likely have to pay more.
>>
>> You keep saying that, and while logical, you have not supported
>> it.
>
> It's obvious if you think about it though. At the extreme when you rent
> a film (or pay-per-view TV or BBC license fee etc) you pay a relatively
> small sum for a product that is limited in the number of times you are
> allowed to view it or the length of time you can watch it for. It would
> be crazy if it were legal to then use that content forever for any
> personal use. IANAL but I'm pretty sure you'd get sued for this.

Renting something is a little different to *buying* it.

If I buy a ladder, I can use it as much as I want. I can use it in any 
way I please. I can cut it into bits, make a sculpture out of it, and 
sell it as modern art. I can lend it to a friend. I can rent it out to 
people. I can sell it to somebody. I can give it to a charity shop.

If I buy a CD, I can do any of those things with the physical object.

If I buy some DRM-protected digital data, usually I won't be able to do 
any of the things listed above. (Not that you can cut up a binary stream 
to make a sculpture out of it, of course.)

Then again, content is strange. If I hear a tune on the radio, and I 
spent two months sat at my keyboard and figure out how to play it, 
that's "reverse engineering". If I record myself playing it, that's 
"constructing a derivative work". And if I let another human being hear 
it, that's "public performance", at which point I'm likely to be sued 
out of existence. (And at this point, I haven't even used the word 
"digital" yet...)

Post a reply to this message

On 21/01/2011 09:33 AM, Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>> Apparently some people think I'm weird because I still buy all my music
>> on CD. What can I say? I like holding the physical object in my hands,
>> looking at the cover art, and being able to play it on a real hi-fi
>> system (i.e., not my PC).
>
> Quite apart from all that, it's often the cheapest option (depending on what
> you're buying, and assuming you actually want most of the tracks on the album).

> no-brainer really, more than twice the price for a stripped-out lossy version?
> Pff.

For most of the stuff I've seen on Amazon, it's the other way round. 

Post a reply to this message

>> understand that it's precisely those limitations that has even allowed
>> them to get the content in the first place (prime example BBC iPlayer or
>> at the extreme hiring DVDs).
>
> Not always. And even if they were the reasons, it's not at all clear
> that removing DRM does harm.

It's not removing the DRM itself, it's what you do afterwards (which 
presumably you couldn't do before - or else, why did you bother?)

> Most importantly, from the wider context, you need to define what "harm"
> is. When I look at these issues, my only concern is maximizing artistic
> endeavours. I believe copyright's only role is to enable that, and that
> was historically how it all began. People making a livelihood via the
> arts is simply not a factor that need be taken into account.

Um... in what way do you suppose copyright was supposed to "maximize 
artistic endeavours" other than "people making a livelihood via the arts"??

>> You seem to be under the illusion that if you buy a copy of something it
>> gives you the right to use it as often as you want on as many devices as
>> you want.  If the license says otherwise that's incorrect.
>
> Licenses need not be legal.

> The publisher does not have absolute rights on this, as the courts have
> shown. Their terms have to conform to certain standards.

More to the point, if somebody buys an item, they reasonably *expect* to 
be able to do certain things with it (depending on what the item is).

If I buy a tune on CD, I expect to be able to play it on any CD player I 
possess. But if I buy a tune as a digital file, I can only play it on 
the PC I bought it with? I don't *think* so! :-P

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> On 21/01/2011 09:33 AM, Bill Pragnell wrote:
> > Invisible<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
> >> Apparently some people think I'm weird because I still buy all my music
> >> on CD. What can I say? I like holding the physical object in my hands,
> >> looking at the cover art, and being able to play it on a real hi-fi
> >> system (i.e., not my PC).
> >
> > Quite apart from all that, it's often the cheapest option (depending on what
> > you're buying, and assuming you actually want most of the tracks on the album).

> > no-brainer really, more than twice the price for a stripped-out lossy version?
> > Pff.
>
> For most of the stuff I've seen on Amazon, it's the other way round.



then I don't buy music very often, so perhaps I should revise my picture of the
market... :)

Post a reply to this message

>> Surely they are not all wrong?
>
> That's a rather weak argument, isn't it?

Well they surely have a lot more information than most of us do on the 
subject, plus they are forced by shareholders to make profit, so it 
seems unlikely they took the decision to invest in and use DRM without 
some thought.

> Renting something is a little different to *buying* it.

How about if I sell you the right to watch my film 10 times, is that 
renting or buying?  How about 100 times, 1000 times, for 5 years, only 
through a specific media player (eg your TV set-top box)?

> If I buy a ladder,

If someone has spent some time coming up with a novel design (eg those 
ones that collapse and fold 10 different ways) then you're probably not 
allowed to make copies and sell it.  You can claim it's your ladder as 
much as you want, but you don't own the IP for it.

> Then again, content is strange. If I hear a tune on the radio, and I
> spent two months sat at my keyboard and figure out how to play it,
> that's "reverse engineering". If I record myself playing it, that's
> "constructing a derivative work". And if I let another human being hear
> it, that's "public performance", at which point I'm likely to be sued
> out of existence. (And at this point, I haven't even used the word
> "digital" yet...)

Exactly, the laws are there to allow people to make investments knowing 
that they will be able to profit from their work.  This goes for 
everything from music and art through to designing cars and phones. 
Without such laws it would be a waste of money to try and develop 
something as you'd never be able to get enough money in return.

Post a reply to this message