<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: French court bans DRM</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.p2pnet.net/story/4638/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/4638</link>
	<description>p2pnet.net - reader powered</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 15:11:09 -0300</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Reader's Write</title>
		<link>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/4638/comment-page-1#comment-12801</link>
		<dc:creator>Reader's Write</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Apr 2005 00:47:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-12801</guid>
		<description>There are some serious issues with DRM. Because of these issues DRM is ultimately on the butchers block, question is when, not if. 

The idea of a successful business modification is that it enhances the users experience. In this, DRM is exactly backwards and doomed to failure, simply by non-acceptance from the public. DRM doesn&#039;t enhance the experience at all, in fact it hinders the experience to the point that it isn&#039;t worth the money. 

A good case can be made that DRM is unconstitutional. The idea of a copyright, as I have mentioned before is that at some point the copyrighted item becomes public domain. When it becomes public domain, anyone can use it. However, DRM has no termination date. By that alone at some point it must become illegal when the work becomes public domain. 

As has been the core of this article, DRM hinders the obtaining of a legal backup or even the changing of formats to use it as you see fit. It is and should be of no interest to the maker of a movie or a song as to how the user wishes to use it. Be it computer, tv unit, or home stereo. Most home stereo&#039;s don&#039;t support the Apple format of ACC as an example. No consumer is going to go out and buy a new player just because that is the only way he can get the song to play on the home unit. Instead, like any cost aware person he will look to modify it to fit what he has and not the other way around. 

I shake my head everytime I hear of our legislature and their lockstep support of the RIAA. It is readily apparent that some of these folks are certainly in the pocket of the majors, just by what they say and do. More what they do than what they say. It is a certainty that those have forgotten that this is to be a government for the people and by the people. When I look to Washington it seems I see the finest legal structure money can buy. Nothing to me speaks louder of the need for a valid and viable third party.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There are some serious issues with DRM. Because of these issues DRM is ultimately on the butchers block, question is when, not if. </p>
<p>The idea of a successful business modification is that it enhances the users experience. In this, DRM is exactly backwards and doomed to failure, simply by non-acceptance from the public. DRM doesn&#8217;t enhance the experience at all, in fact it hinders the experience to the point that it isn&#8217;t worth the money. </p>
<p>A good case can be made that DRM is unconstitutional. The idea of a copyright, as I have mentioned before is that at some point the copyrighted item becomes public domain. When it becomes public domain, anyone can use it. However, DRM has no termination date. By that alone at some point it must become illegal when the work becomes public domain. </p>
<p>As has been the core of this article, DRM hinders the obtaining of a legal backup or even the changing of formats to use it as you see fit. It is and should be of no interest to the maker of a movie or a song as to how the user wishes to use it. Be it computer, tv unit, or home stereo. Most home stereo&#8217;s don&#8217;t support the Apple format of ACC as an example. No consumer is going to go out and buy a new player just because that is the only way he can get the song to play on the home unit. Instead, like any cost aware person he will look to modify it to fit what he has and not the other way around. </p>
<p>I shake my head everytime I hear of our legislature and their lockstep support of the RIAA. It is readily apparent that some of these folks are certainly in the pocket of the majors, just by what they say and do. More what they do than what they say. It is a certainty that those have forgotten that this is to be a government for the people and by the people. When I look to Washington it seems I see the finest legal structure money can buy. Nothing to me speaks louder of the need for a valid and viable third party.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Reader's Write</title>
		<link>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/4638/comment-page-1#comment-12798</link>
		<dc:creator>Reader's Write</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Apr 2005 23:17:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-12798</guid>
		<description>How come the courts in the united states could not amend the dmca so that people can make up backup copies of their LEGALLY BOUGHT movie dvds ? 

There is a  supreme court decision pending about the legality of p2p issues. 

Would this be related to this issue or would personal movie backups under the fair use principle would be a seperate issue ?

They tried to amend the dmca in the united states congress by H.R. 107 . 

This piece of legislation has been in the united states congress for over a year and the last time i heard the MPAA  was bragging how they defeated it in congress.

I really don&#039;t have any faith in the us congress to do the right thing because they as a whole are corrupt to the bone and they take kickbacks and bribes from the MPAA  and RIAA.

I have extremely good luck with dvdfab slysoft dvd shrink and dvd decyrpter . 

After the MPAA ran 321 studios out of business last year the MPAA and their corrupt bought off  cronies in congress would never agree to legalizing movie copying with decss utilties in them in the united states.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>How come the courts in the united states could not amend the dmca so that people can make up backup copies of their LEGALLY BOUGHT movie dvds ? </p>
<p>There is a  supreme court decision pending about the legality of p2p issues. </p>
<p>Would this be related to this issue or would personal movie backups under the fair use principle would be a seperate issue ?</p>
<p>They tried to amend the dmca in the united states congress by H.R. 107 . </p>
<p>This piece of legislation has been in the united states congress for over a year and the last time i heard the MPAA  was bragging how they defeated it in congress.</p>
<p>I really don&#8217;t have any faith in the us congress to do the right thing because they as a whole are corrupt to the bone and they take kickbacks and bribes from the MPAA  and RIAA.</p>
<p>I have extremely good luck with dvdfab slysoft dvd shrink and dvd decyrpter . </p>
<p>After the MPAA ran 321 studios out of business last year the MPAA and their corrupt bought off  cronies in congress would never agree to legalizing movie copying with decss utilties in them in the united states.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>


