![]() ![]() If a DVD costs £5 in China and I can ship it for £3 (total £8), why am I paying £14+ for the EXACT SAME MOVIE (language aside)? Price-fixing is the only answer. It is also saddening that the state (well, Europe) is happy to assist in these price fixing-cartels. It is a total pisser to have grief playing a DVD I have legally bought (or having to pay extra just to get a particular region code). ![]() I like my DVDs, films etc and I like world cinema. ![]() no DRM or other anti-fair user bullshit). ![]() Let me copy what I want, when I want, to whatever media I want, for my own personal/home use (i.e. Let me buy a CD from anywhere in the world and play it anywhere in the world. Let me buy a DVD from anywhere in the world and play it anywhere else in the world. The industry and the laws are so out of sync with society this was bound to happen. In the end you stop caring about giving the makers any money, it's more convenient just to download or stop consuming altogether. What's that? DRM? I'd better pirate it then.ĬD won't rip because they stuffed extra data in to confuse DVD-ROM drives? Pirate it.ĭigital download won't play on my second/third computer or my new, differently branded mp3 player? Pirate it.ĭigital downloads of the album cost *more* than the physical artifact that had to be manufactured and shipped? WTF? Pirate it. Yes, I would like to rip and transcode my blu-ray movie to watch on my netbook. Whilst it is immoral (and should continue to be illegal) to blindly copy everything, we need to take another look at the deal we have struck with copyright holders, and the deals they are allowed to strike with content creators.Īdd to this that the copyright holders are attempting to use every technological trick in the book to stop people making legitimate use of media they purchase, and you have a recipe for what we have now - open rebellion. Who more often than not is whoever managed to convince the actual artist to indebt themselves and sign everything over to them. One could argue that this has been stretched to far in one direction and that society no longer benefits as much as the copyright holder. We give people a temporary monopoly on their work not because it's some sort of natural right but because it benefits all of us to do so. Copyright et al exist to encourage people to contribute to the common culture. Is thirty years not enough for us to consider that their material has both had its heyday and entered out culture enough that by now it should be in the public domain?Ĭurrent terms are, in my opinion, waaaaay too long. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |