Verily I say unto thee, that spike1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx spake thusly:
> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> did eloquently scribble:
>> How-To: Play Blu-ray and HD DVD Movie Discs in Linux
>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | At this point it's not an elegant solution, but they're getting there.
>> | Soon, I'm sure, it will be as easy as just dropping in the disc.
>> `----
>
>> http://www.ehomeupgrade.com/entry/3737/how-to_play_blu-ray
>
>> Just don't do this in France or the US.
>
> Aye, having the AUDACITY to play your own property on your own machine.
> The cheek of it, lock them all up, that's what I say.
> :)
Ah but that's where the content providers have you by the gonads. You
don't *own* anything, you've been granted a license ... permission to
view their content. That's all.
The hypocrisy is, that despite you "owning" that permission to view, if
you later want to view that same content on another device (iPod, Media
Server, etc.) you do *not* have permission to transfer or transcode that
content to that device's native format (and indeed, even *trying* to do
so is illegal - denounced as "circumvention" under the DMCA).
So you *pay* for "permission", not product. But then you are expected to
pay again ... and again, and again, and again, for that *same*
permission, to view that *same* content, on each and every device you
wish to view that content on.
And then, in later years, when the media on which that content is stored
has degraded to the point of being unusable, the content providers
demand that you pay *yet again* to replace that "permission" in the form
of new media.
But wait a minute ... didn't you already pay for permission? The money
you spend was not for ownership of a *product*, was it? The cost of the
physical materials was mere pennies; the vast majority of what you paid
was for a *licence*, so how come you need to pay the *full price* for
*replacement media*? Surely the cost the *second time around* should be
material costs only, since you already "own" the permission to view the
content.
But it doesn't work out that way, does it?
It's a scam, pure and simple. A license to print money.
And the really sickening thing is, there's an army of zombie consumers
out there, helping to perpetuate the problem (not part of the solution)
by haplessly going along with the RI/MP/AA's evil ploy, and just buy,
buy, buying the same content over and over again, like sheep.
And all the while, the RI/MP/AA are barking at the sheep, saying "if you
don't keep paying, then you are criminals", cheered on by Microsoft and
Apple on the sidelines.
If P2P file sharing of content is illegal, then this RI/MP/AA scam is
doubly so. How it is even *tolerated* is beyond comprehension. But it
would seem that the supposedly "democratic" governments of the West are
more apt to believe the rantings of a group of self-appointed,
self-righteous, self-serving, industry police; than the common-sense
voice of the people.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| I found [Vista] to be a dangerously unstable operating system,
| which has caused me to lose data ... unfortunately this product
| is unfit for any user. - [H]ardOCP, <http://tinyurl.com/3bpfs2>
`----
Fedora Core release 5 (Bordeaux) on sky, running kernel 2.6.20-1.2312.fc5
18:00:22 up 4 days, 15:32, 2 users, load average: 0.25, 0.31, 0.27
|
|
