Comments on: The Analog Hole

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 17 Jan 2006 21:55:14 +0000

I wonder why organisations and governments persist with the belief that introducing more laws somehow gives them more control over human behaviour. I mean, if the “more laws” rule hasn’t stopped a population from committing murder etc, why on earth would it stop them doing something that is considered reasonably harmless, such as breaking copyright laws and sharing media.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 17 Jan 2006 01:18:03 +0000

I ment to say sub section….damn fingers get in the way of my typing

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 17 Jan 2006 01:17:32 +0000

sorry, must have missed that sun section!

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Mon, 16 Jan 2006 23:38:12 +0000

I thought this was already covered under the Patriot Act Extension?

–TG

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Mon, 16 Jan 2006 20:34:31 +0000

you forgot the third, have George pass a law requiring permits for sight and hearing, and give the cartels the ability to remove them.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Mon, 16 Jan 2006 19:12:03 +0000

As most people know, most actors and actresses are anti-”Republican.”
Pointing out to these folks that this technology can be used by the Bush or whover’s administration who happens to be in power at the moment to stifle their opinion. If people inside the lamescream “entertainment” industry see how this type of technology can be used “against them,” maybe they will wise up and join the fight on our side.

Any new technology designed specificaly to restrict (whether it is in making fake state ID’s, counterfeiting, or filesharing) peoples’ freedom will always be defeated in a short period of time by a determined hacker. Hacking makes people free.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Mon, 16 Jan 2006 09:04:19 +0000

The mindset we have now is one of restriction, protectionism, and entrenchment, when it comes to legistaltive actions. This and the one of making a troll a criminal offense is in the same line of thinking. Neither will truely be effective for its’ intent.

This is interesting from other aspect. Recolorising old movies, which Turner Broadcasting did with some of the old black and white movies raised all sorts of stink with modifing the original format. This was rather short sighted of the industry as a whole. None of the younger generation is interested in the black and white and to them, who grew up in the colorized generation are willing to watch such in B&W. It is through this and other technological measures that such become possible and that new sales might be realized through modified older movies, giving them both longer economic life and renewed interest from a newer generation of customers.

Tomorrow or the next day might again reveal another new process that could once again revive the process into a brand new repeat money maker. However with the present day protectionism attitudes, none of this will likely be present in the future with the direction things are going now. Not only will looking at a movie with the idea in mind of changes be legal, but the very act appears on the verge of being an illegal act. That is far too much restriction and it looks for all intents and purposes that the media cartels have laid to rest their personal demon of the Fair Use Act.

It may be the only way they will sell this, it’s not the way I as a customer will accept it though. I refuse to pay the price of owning for rental stipulations. Now Hollywood may push this to the very edge but I fail to see where making products so restrictive that for the average customer it is more problems to use the purchased product than it is worth, will increase sales. In fact it smacks of making the buying experience to own ever harder to justify. Customer dissatisfaction is the quickest way I know of to lose sales.

Lastly, all this protectionism is only restricting what we have as choices in the market place. I for one won’t buy a new player till my old one dies. If that means I don’t see the latest greatest, so be it. It still won’t get me to the store any faster to encorporate some new idea the industry wants the marketplace to buy into. They haven’t even agreed on industry wide standards yet. Tomorrow a new golden boy may be the idea of the day to push and I don’t want that. I want something that I buy once and use from then on out till that equipment dies. They aren’t meeting my demands as to what I wish for either equipment, nor standards, nor product. As such, I won’t spend to buy what I don’t see a future in or a questionable product of limited lifespan.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sun, 15 Jan 2006 18:33:35 +0000

The really worrisome thing about these trends in general is that it seems to me that rather than choosing to compete on a level playing field, the entertainment companies are choosing instead to institute protectionist measures in an attempt to stifle competition. This is one thing when they do it from a private standpoint, but by making these things the law of the land they pull us into it as a country. Historically, those who compete freely over the long term will prosper over those who do not.

“Still, it moves.”

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sun, 15 Jan 2006 10:34:35 +0000

As you point out old technology will be more valuable than new technology, which is restricted. As an example the FCC banned radios from receiving frequencies in the 800 mhz range. That was done so that people couldn’t listen in on analog cell phone calls. But old TVs can still pick up those frequencies on the UHF channels.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sun, 15 Jan 2006 10:28:10 +0000

Maybe in the future people will be forced to wear hearing aids all their lives that are surgically implanted at birth, that block restricted content from reaching their natural ears.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sun, 15 Jan 2006 09:09:23 +0000

Our ears and eyes are analog. Plugging the “Hole” is impossible.

What about Ear Plugs?

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sun, 15 Jan 2006 07:57:43 +0000

This would seem to me to be a clear violation of free speech under the following scenario : Let’s say I wish to post a political opinion (or anything else for that matter) on the web in digital format. So I record it on a small tape recorder as I think of it during the day. When I want to post it, I play it back and convert it to MP3 or whatever on my computer. But I can’t because I’m not a professional and so I can’t have the sort of computer that allows me to do this. Clear FS violation?

Hmmmm – I guess this would also mean computers would be outlawed as well. I still have my old 166MHz laying around here somewheres. As for new ones, GET ‘EM WHILE THEY’RE HOT, BOYS !!!

But seriously, this is all rather disturbing. It’s the kind of thing I expect to see when the people running the show have no clue how the show actually runs. Just ask Brownie.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sun, 15 Jan 2006 05:23:34 +0000

I know one thing…there are plenty of holes at the RIAA and MPAA…

ASSholes, that is.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sun, 15 Jan 2006 00:33:31 +0000

Our ears and eyes are analog. Plugging the “Hole” is impossible.