 |
 |
 |
 |
||
           |
Stop the Anti-Divx Madness! Posted by Chris Williams [IP: 207.241.63.142] on November 15, 1998 at 18:28:49: In Reply to: Stop the Anti-Divx Madness! posted by Jeff T on November 15, 1998 at 12:58:17: : Chris and Bryan have hit the nail on the head. Thank you. :The studios have been PO'd ever since the Fair Use laws were enacted. Actually, the "Fair Use" doctrine has existed as long as the US Constitution. Copyright was intended to be a limited right granted to creators in order to encourage them to create. It was *never* intended to be either unlimited or forever. The framers intended everything to eventually fall into the public domain. :DIVX is a way for them to break from this paradigm and instill one of their own. Right. Look at how they have fought computer software rental. : They have fought new technology development, including if you remember, VHS. A friend of mine was involved in home video from before VHS - back in the days of 1/2" open reel, 3/4" and 11 different competing 1/2" cassette formats (really! "Great Time Machine, Cartavision, V2000, etc.). He told me that a Warner's executive told him at the time that *never*, under any circumstances, would *any* Warner's movies appear on home video. The entire home video market was money that we had to practically *force* into their hands. Remember the Universal & Disney vs. Sony "Betamax" case? The gist of that was that what people did in the privacy of their own homes was their own business. >Now they're at work on DTV technologies and trying to strong arm vendors into delaying or not releasing other digital products. I hold no hope that the traditional consumer electronics vendors will do the right thing, as so many of them either own, or are owned by, film studios. Sony now owns Columbia. Why shouldn't Sony Electronics provide Columbia with the "protection" they want? The hope I do have is that the computer industry, being composed of a huge number of small enterperneral companies, will ignore the edicts of the Hollywood studios, and their bought-and-paid-for Congress-critters, and either ignore, or do an easily defeatable implimentation of the "protection". : This is rather stupid since we, the consumer, are their biggest supporter. Open DVD, reasonably priced, with ready availability of all major titles, would be a windfall for them. As big, or bigger than VHS. They fought against it tooth and nail, and now it's the vast majority of their income. : I am sure that this is difficult to comprehend for even the smartest studio bosses, when they are blinded by the greedy promise of DIVX. Hell, they're blinded by greed, period. Edgar Bronfman of Universal was telling his stockholders that he thought they should charge more to see their more expensive movies in theaters. Right...like anyone would pay $15 to see "Godzilla", just because they happened to waste a huge amount of money. :And there's always that $20M in bribe money that they get paid too. Don't worry. They have a lot more stupid ideas where that one came from. : : : OK, here's my main arguments against DIVX. : : : 1: The vast majority of the money and control of the system is in the hands of one company and a group of lawyers. If they succeed in pushing this, and killing the VHS rental market and DVD rental market, they can start raising prices...even on the discs you curently have in your "library". Cheap initial rentals are like "free" software from Microsoft. : : Exactly! Except they won't kill the VHS market for some time. Never if they don't stop messing around with anti-copy schemes that trash the performance and compatibility of the format. : : : 2: It allows one huge marketing machine to have far more information about one's viewing habits than any reasonably prudent person would wish. When you combine the information in your credit report with all this info about what you watch, the value is so high to them they could give you the films for free, and still make money. : : Can you say "Big Brother is watching?" : : : 3: It's the proverbial "camel's nose". If they can succeed in getting the public to accept the idea of a Pay-Per-View disc, they'll try for a Pay-Per-Listen audio format next. Don't think for a minute they haven't considered this. What's next? Pay-Per-Read books? : : Right on the nose... Look what is already happening to sports on TV. Remember when you could see championship boxing on ABC? Remember when all channels on Saturday and Sunday had football? Remember when you could see all the NCAA tournament games in March on free TV? Now you pay to watch what you want. That is somewhat OK, but at least I watch what I want, when I want and it is up to me without being tethered to a phone line and somebody's marketing database. : : :: So the question is, just because we home theater weenies want DVD does that mean the VHS market SHOULDN'T get an upgrade? Indeed, the more Divx machines they sell based on its merits, the larger the DVD market grows, because every Divx owner will be a potential DVD purchaser as well. : : :: And anything that enlarges the DVD market increases availability of DVD titles, and maybe even lower DVD prices a bit more. : : This is not so much an issue of technology as it is of privacy and money. None of the first and tons of the second coming out of your pocket and into the DIVX camp. Compare the price of a "Gold" DIVX disc.(one you have bought unlimited rights to.) It is considerably more expensive than a conventional DVD and offers poorer quality, and no option for DTS. If they succeed with this, rental and purchase prices for conventional DVDs will be higher due to reduced rental revenues. Now DIVX costs will seem more in line. Don' beleive the marketing hype for a minute. The overall goal is to drive the prices UP so as to pay for their restrictive additional technology and marketing machine. This, coupled with the fact that I will be getting 10 times the junk mail and spam, is a total turn off to me. : : :: Let's not force people to choose between VHS rentals and DVD purchase. Divx is a nice happy medium between the two for many people. Isn't this a country whose founders came here to avoid having the views of the majority forced upon them? : : What happened to renting open DVDs? They are already down to only a buck or so more than renting a VHS tape. : : : You don't know how nearly right you are. Opposing DIVX is a civil liberties issue that would be very clear to our Founding Fathers. The Copyright Act included the "Doctrine of First Sale", specifically authorizing one to re-sell an issue of a copyrighted work, like a book. I can re-sell any of my books, DVDs, Laserdiscs and VHS tapes. DIVX is an attempt to gut First Sale. If we have any respect for the wisdom of the Founders, we cannot let them succeed. : : Pretty heavy analogy, but basically correct in its message. Do you really want another VHS/Beta scandal. the VHS standard has been a wonderful thing although Beta is by far the superior format. Marketing and money over superior format at the same cost, I hope we learned the first time. Problem is, we have to educate the general public as to ALL the issues with DIVX vx. Open DVD. I say, why stop it? If you are concened about "freedom of choice", why do you want to quash open and honest bashing of an inferior product which restricts your right to treat your purchases as you please and keep your viewing habits where they belong: IN YOUR THEATER! : : To close my ramblings, let's just say, if I can get my toungue out of my cheek, that I would certainly rather give up my privacy, pay more in the long term, never be able to watch a movie on somebody elses machine (or another of my own), and get an inferior product while paying more for it. Makes sense to me. NOT!
Return to the new SMR Forums Menu
|
|
|||
|
 © SMR Group 2001-2004 - http://www.smr-group.co.uk/ |
|
|||
