On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 09:23:22 +0100, name <[email protected]> wrote:
>HappyGilmore wrote:
>> Amazon are now offering episodes of Wood Works (with David Marks) for
>> download off the new Amazon.com Unbox video feature.
>> $1.99 per episode. Not bad
>
>Could have been good, but read this first:
>http://www.boingboing.net/2006/09/15/amazon_unbox_to_cust.html
Thanks for that link!
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 09:23:22 +0100, name <[email protected]> wrote:
>HappyGilmore wrote:
>> Amazon are now offering episodes of Wood Works (with David Marks) for
>> download off the new Amazon.com Unbox video feature.
>> $1.99 per episode. Not bad
>
>Could have been good, but read this first:
>http://www.boingboing.net/2006/09/15/amazon_unbox_to_cust.html
Let me preface this by saying that if Osama had flew a plane into the
RIAA or MPAA headquarters instead of the WTC he'd have performed a
service to humanity.
Taht said, while he raises some good points, he buries them in the
foam coming out of his mouth.
For example, he goes on about "forget about viewing them in the
waiting room" when that in fact would pretty clearly be a use that was
not prohibited, further if he actually _read_ the license on a DVD
he'd find pretty much the same restrictions on use, and they're about
as enforceable.
He goes on about how you don't own the content, you license it--well
I've got news for him, AMAZON doesn't own the content, _they_ license
it, so there's no way for them to sell it to you without violating
their license and violating copyright law which can lead to criminal
charges. If he doesn't like this he needs to take it up with the
legislature, not rail at Amazon.
The term "purchased content" is used in the same way by every other
legal download service I've encountered, so it seems likely that it is
required by whatever contract the download service has to sign in
order to obtain access to the content.
He needs to make a distinction between his problems with the law as
written and interpreted by the courts (and there are many) and his
problems with the actions that companies hoping to provide digital
services have to take to be in compliance with that law (there appear
to be many of those as well).
One could argue that they just shouldn't bother to go into business
until the law is changed to suit him, but if that's the case then he's
got _no_ digital downloads except pirate copies so how would he be
better off?
If someone doesn't want to be sujected to a contract such as Unbox's,
then one should not deal with them, or iTunes, or Napster, or Urge, or
any other legal digital content provider. One shouldn't use a
DirectTivo or any other kind of recording device provided by a cable
or satellite company.
And if someone wants to _own_ the files then he needs to organize a
million pirate march or form a lobby with the power and influence of,
say, the NRA, or find some other way to get the attention of Congress.
If most of the public disagrees with the law this shouldn't be
difficult. And if they don't disagree with it then he needs to
organize pirate-ins or some other kind of demonstration for the
purpose of raising consciousness. Of course the risk he runs when
doing that is being thought a loon (also being beaten by cops or
security guards, dragged off to jail, found to be insufficiently moral
to be sent to kill innocent women and children . . .).