 |
 |
 |
 |
||
           |
Stop the Anti-Divx Madness! Posted by David [IP: 207.235.31.252] on November 16, 1998 at 03:18:14: In Reply to: Stop the Anti-Divx Madness! posted by Chris Williams on November 15, 1998 at 19:15:41: First, remember, I opened this thread knowing flaming was inevitable. I know, and I hope you do as well, that all the inflammatory things said in a faceless computerized forum need to be understood as such: no two people in their right minds would talk this way face to face. That said... : Hah. The government tried to try trusting the "market" to provide privacy and security of digital information. The GSA concluded that they had done a miserable job, and laws are necessary. Well according to your paranoid fantasies, since it's impossible to prove, laws wouldn't protect you anyway. The good thing about Divx is it was drafted by lawyers, and at least they should THEORETICALLY do things by the book. : : Again, the market will not bear the concept of pay-per-listen audio unless it's for pennies per song. Pay-per-read won't fly because library cards are free. You have no idea who "really doesn't get" what. We don't have to pay to re-listen to CDs and re-read books because we've PURCHASED rights to a copy, as opposed to Divx where you've paid a 48 hr rental fee. What feebleminded people can't grasp is that we've been watching pay-per-view on VHS, LD, and cable for years, and furthermore have been renting and leasing cars (pay-per-drive, if you will) and renting furniture, apartments and houses and the list goes on: with no rights other than temporary usage, and with repeated payments to continue usage. What unsettles you about Divx is that it's conceptually different from any rental you've seen before: you get to keep the disc in your home. You're confused because traditionally, if you pay and are allowed to keep the item, you OWN it; but THIS is a rental where you can keep the "key" to re-rent right in your home for easy re-rental. But it's no different from other pay-per-view media: you only paid for a "rental", so you get limited viewing. And yet there's that disc sitting so enticing in your living room. Try to grasp the concept, difficult as it is: it's a rental like any other rental, only it's easier to rent again. It's no new, subversive conspiracy designed to erode our constitutional rights; it's JUST ANOTHER RENTAL METHOD. : This is the way the framers of the constitution intended it to be. I buy a copy of a copyrighted work. I can enjoy it in my own home any way I choose *except*, specifically, to make copies for sale. That is the only thing I cannot do. Yadda, yadda. You said it yourself, "I BUY a copy..."; you don't BUY Divx discs, you buy a 48 hr rental. Understand this, Mr. "you really don't get it", the only difference between Divx and VHS rental is where the case sits between rentals. : No. Studios will always want to rent it again and again, rather than sell. It's the better deal for them in the end. They could give a damn what the consumers prefer. The low cost of VHS and DVD discs goes against your hypothesis; if they DID prefer rentals, the studios would open their own video rental chains and jack up the prices of software. Indeed, the low cost of ownership points to the fact that they would like to offer ownership to more homes, partially as disincentive for copying. And of course, if they could have their cake and eat it too (both purchase AND pay-per-view markets), who WOULDN'T take the extra income? Everyone's got families to feed and investors to answer to. : : You can't resell a Divx disc because you don't own the copy, not because Divx is somehow cheating the system. Please re-read my above explanation regarding the difference between purchase and rental. : :You should be able to sell a silver or gold disc; if not, then THAT'S a travesty that cannot be tolerated. If that were that case, that's absolutely wrong and should NOT be tolerated. However, the golded discs have unlimited play on ANY Divx player, and as such, can be sold to anyone with a Divx player, like anything you own a copy of. : You're almost there. Please...think about this. Imagine that every book you've ever read and loved were to suddenly go blank. In order for the words to reappear to read a fairy tale to your child, you had to rent it. As touching as your hyperbole is, it's absurd. Before Divx and the idea of a rental that remains in your house (which is unnerving to you), you never complained about the VHS rental industry (what? I gotta pay $3 AGAIN to watch it again? or, what? I gotta pay the apartment rent AGAIN? I just paid rent last month.) : P.S. Ever notice that, in general, DIVX opponents know more about DIVX than DIVX supporters? Your smug condescendence would have annoyed me if you knew what you were talking about. And if you were able to grasp the simple conceptual difference between purchase and rental, I wouldn't have been so underwhelmed. Furthermore, if you'd been paying attention, you'd have realized I'm not a Divx proponent but a proponent of the choice it offers (I'm personally firmly committed to DVD and already own multiple DVD titles).
Follow Ups:
Return to the new SMR Forums Menu
|
|
|||
|
 © SMR Group 2001-2004 - http://www.smr-group.co.uk/ |
|
|||
