It's not the provider though. Its the content providers. It's really bad. This is one of the reasons I hate the DCMA so bad.
I am fortunate though. I have 2 TV's that support HDCP one with HDMI and one with DVI. Most people are not that lucky though
"High resolution output is forbidden for this content. Resolution is changed to 480p
- Thread starter Ronald_Jeremy
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 98
- Views 10K
It's not the provider though. Its the content providers. It's really bad. This is one of the reasons I hate the DCMA so bad.
I am fortunate though. I have 2 TV's that support HDCP one with HDMI and one with DVI. Most people are not that lucky though
It's not the provider though. Its the content providers. It's really bad. This is one of the reasons I hate the DCMA so bad.
I am fortunate though. I have 2 TV's that support HDCP one with HDMI and one with DVI. Most people are not that lucky though
Maybe they should start doing this - it would be a very quick way to get a whole bunch of people to join your cause...
Maybe they should start doing this - it would be a very quick way to get a whole bunch of people to join your cause...
True enough, Though I am anti piracy - I just don't believe in the current way of fighting piracy. *shrug*
Totally agree. When it gets to the point of interfering with honest people trying to watch content they've paid for in the comfort of their own homes, it's a major problem...
Yeah, but according to Sony/betamax the right to copy something you LEGALLY OWN IS A HUMAN RIGHT!
Hey i'm all for support content creation in a monetary way that is FAIR to both the provider and consumer. Here is an actual example from me personally. I despise the RIAA soo much, you have no idea. When I found out about ALLOFMP3.com almost 3 years ago, I was on them like a fat kid on donut. Why, because first and foremost NO DRM - when I buy a f**king song its mine not leased and damn sure not rented. The second reason was a price point of about 17cents a song. I mean come on you're telling me that now that you don't have to produce a CD, ship that disc, pay merchant fees to third parties (ie BB etc) you're gonna charge full price (per song on a regular store bought disc) for a distribution medium that is mostly incumbent on me the consumer to provide (computer, broadband, storage medium, etc....) with DRM to boot which means drum roll........ that its really f**king leased/rented to begin with and not really my music at all. The only negative to my side of the equation is that ALLOFMP3 at present doesn't really give back to the your precious record companies or more importantly to the artists (oh BTW the record companies screw them on their slice, trust me I know). Hey, but i'll still meet you half way. The second your precious record companies f**king get a clue and start selling all their music without DRM and around the approximate price as ALLOFMP3, then I will gladly start supporting them in return. I want the artist to continue to make money and more music, but at present the powers that be haven't got a clue that all it takes is a simple business model change and they would be rolling in the cash (trust me sites like ALLOFMP3 make a ton of money). However, they are f**king stupid and greedy in terms being clinging to their old 80's fat calf ways and MORE TO POINT THEY INSIST ON TAKING AWAY MY RIGHTS!!!!! So your damn right I support the Slysofts and the ALLOFMP3's of the world. Because they are the only one who seem to give a rats ass about the consumers rights. I could apply this example in several way to the MPAA, trust me you have no I idea how much a f**king douche bag Jack Valenti was in some of his decisions about consumer rights. He tried for years to find ways to close the "analog hole" without success, then the almighty HDCP and probably soon the broad cast flag came in to being with the high def stuff, which in my book equivalates to the same tactics of the RIAA. I'm not saying we need to go back to napster, because that is blatant stealing but by that same token don't expect to freakin fleece me up the wazoo or expect to take away my rights (which seems to be the status at present). If thats the case then I'm all for sticking it to the man and fighting him tooth and nail.
Really? Because the rest of your post seems to contradict that statement:
I'm not saying I agree with what the companies are doing, but if what you're saying is true, then what you're doing is no better than piracy IMO, except that you're paying for it and that somehow makes you feel better.
And knowingly paying to support a company that is actively screwing me is any better? You have got to be kidding me....
Look, like i stated earlier, i'm not happy about my present company not supporting the artist. However, I wil continue to support that company monetarily because that's the only thing your stupid corporate greedy nazis understand (oh btw these are the same people who were successfully sued in class action for price fixing of CDs and that all you had to do put your name in if you bought any CD before 1996 I believe, so don't give me that crap about how they look out for your interest or the interests of the industry as a whole). It would be different if I were saying, let's just steal the music which is completely not the case and nobody gets paid a damn dime. Quite the contrary, i'm a supporting a business model thats consumer friendly and drum roll........ MAKES A LOT OF MONEY!..... What part of that you don't get I have no idea. I support this business model because it completely fair to me first and foremost (ie. no DRM period......) and second because if i don't your stupid corporate greedy and power hungry nazis will never change. The part you still haven't got is the what if: News flash - the record companies adopted the new business model, because gasp.... god forbid that technology changed around them. They could be rolling in cash (hell, if nothing else my music purchases went way up). The modus operandi here is simple "adapt or die" and in this case means being fair to your artists and your consumer. My god, if you gave 8 cents to aritist, seven cents to yourself, and 2 cents for site upkeep/overhead costs (which in comparison to your business are practically nill), you'd make a killing. Now admittedly, you would have to trim some of your corporate staff (because at some point it is going to cut into your BB sales- but that happens sometimes when technology changes in industry and old avenues of commerce sometimes don't work as well , get over it), actually pay the artists what they are worth (which you haven't done historically), oh and give the consumer back his full rights/power over the product he purchases, but your record companies are too stupid to see that because they are obsessed with greed and power which is something they can't let go of. So, consumers (like myself) have to burn them down, until they change and everything goes back to equilibrium and everybody gets paid and everyone is happy.... It's not that hard a concept.....
Last edited:
And knowingly paying to support a company that is actively screwing me is any better? You have got to be kidding me....
Of course they're making money. Because they're not giving any to the studio or the artist, which is where a large part of the costs are!
Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. You're either for giving money to the artists or you're not. You're obviously not. You can't complain about companies historically not paying artists out of one side of your mouth and then purposely undercut their ability to pay said artists out of the other side.
What part of adopt a new business model because technology changed around you do you not get?
I get it, and I think they have - at least, they've started to.
What I don't get is your idea that because they haven't done it fast enough (or cheap enough) for you, it's ok for you to participate in stealing the artists' (and the labels') intellectual property, which is what you're doing, plain and simple.
News flash - they only reason they are starting to do this at all is because they see sites like ALLOFMP3.com making money hand over fist simply because they are not out screw the consumer. I guarantee you if these sites didn't exist, you'd have squat for rights/fair use from the record companies. They are just balking at the prospect in the short term of having to make a little less profit because their precious fat cow CD sales will be hurt by it and you have to be truly honest with your artists because sales accounting just got a whole lot easier. Big deal who cares, your long term profit gets much higher because consumers will buy more music from you because they will actually own product (ie no DRM) and it is a fair price point. After I joined ALLOFMP3 my music purchases went way up. I am still patiently waiting for the record labels to truly adopt this model. You're right it is coming slowly, but only because of consumers like myself who are fed up and basically taking their business elsewhere.
Last edited:
Not quick enough? That is an understatement. It has been nearly a decade since they tried to get an injunction to stop office depot from selling one of the first mp3 players!! A decade.
Again, I'm not justifying what the companies are doing. But I also refuse to justify stealing to "combat" what they're doing.
I don't think people are advocation stealing. We're talking about preventing companies from engaging in copyright abuse, and taking people's fair use rights away from them. If you think fair use is "stealing" then you've been drinking the RIAA and MPAA Kool-Aid.
Have you read the last few pages of this thread? ocnier said he regularly uses a download site that gives NOTHING to either the studio or the artist. If that's not stealing, I'm not sure what is...
