Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> ____/ Mark Kent on Tuesday 04 September 2007 18:48 : \____
>
>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>> ____/ Mark Kent on Tuesday 04 September 2007 13:20 : \____
>>>
>>>> yakety yak <who.me@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>>> On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 03:26:26 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> ____/ [H]omer on Sunday 12 August 2007 21:27 : \____
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Verily I say unto thee, that yakety yak spake thusly:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> After August 15, 2007, you will no longer be able to view your
>>>>>>>> purchased or rented videos.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Google Video Team
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> IOW, in the opinion of the Media Industry and it's lackeys: "Purchased
>>>>>>> == Rented" ... no "rights" are ever permanent, all are revocable;
>>>>>>> irrespective of how much one pays, or what the original expectations of
>>>>>>> payment were.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I fully expect the MP/RI/AA to come crashing through my door any day
>>>>>>> now, shotguns in hand, demanding that I "re-purchase" my entire CD and
>>>>>>> DVD collection (or die), because I've "owned" them too long.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I, for one, would not care to be dependent on an OS designed around
>>>>>>>> DRM.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I.e. - one designed to the MP/RI/AA gangsters' specifications.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, the "renting" plot. We saw that coming last year. The MSBBC was
>>>>>> corrupted to accept this too, at the taxpayers' expense.
>>>>>
>>>>> Last year? I saw it coming 7 years ago when rumours of WPA first started
>>>>> circulating. There is no difference between what Google just did with
>>>>> purchased videos, and Microsoft's use of WPA to prohibit fair use of
>>>>> legally purchased copies of Windows.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You're quite right, it's been coming a while now. Still, the BBC, in
>>>> particular, Mr Ashley Highfield, has achieved something quite unique in
>>>> the history of the corporation - he's managed to waste £130Million of
>>>> licence-payer money on software which can only work on a very particular
>>>> arrangement of hardware and software, from a company known to have been
>>>> found guilty of anti-trust laws in both the EU and the US.
>>>>
>>>> £130 Million, Mr Highfield. £130 Million, of licence revenue.
>>>>
>>>> What were you thinking about?
>>>
>>> It's not £130 Million It's £130 Million _and still rising_. It's only in
>>> beta, as well.
>>>
>>> What's the gain and 'feature'? It supports less choice than the BBC used to
>>> support. Moreover, the spendings from the public shall be elevated as well.
>>> XP or above, remember? Who benefits? The monopoly that Mr. Highfield is now
>>> having lunch with.
>>>
>>> It's the corrupt type of government... but right here in Europe. Microsoft's
>>> money corrupts governments. Just watch ISO/OOXML and see how people lost
>>> faith in their authority, having witnessed corruption. Microsoft's Magatron
>>> Money Machine(R) is to blame here.
>>>
>>
>> I wouldn't mind quite so much if the BBC were actually getting anything,
>> but they're not. They're paying to be a conduit for a Microsoft-owned
>> binary-blob of code. The whole situation is appalling.
>
> Well, corruption *IS* appalling. And that's just what it is. Who would you
> complain to? When Microsoft is part of the scheme, you're looking at an entity
> that's more powerful than the US DoJ and the EC combined.
>
I was rather hopeing that the EU wouldn't be quite so easily moved on
this, but time will tell...
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |
|
|
