____/ 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.
--
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | Useless fact: Brazil spans 47.8% of S. America
http://Schestowitz.com | Free as in Free Beer | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Cpu(s): 27.3%us, 4.8%sy, 1.0%ni, 62.1%id, 4.4%wa, 0.3%hi, 0.2%si, 0.0%st
http://iuron.com - semantic engine to gather information
|
|
