Will HDTV antipiracy plan unplug digital networks?

TalkBack 3 of 6:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

Hollywood has one single product.

That single product - in its form,should not dictate what digital equipment can be made of to its components. There is so much work going on for 'broadcast '' feasibility. It is in the imagination of congressmen,lawmakers,that the 'new product is anything conceptually different from that of the past product.

Where this determination changes,is the fact that 'broadcast,from communications are two different facets for the same equipment.At least on the 'personable level. 'Broadcast wants equipment that does just that 'broadcasts,while consumers want equipment that 'communicate(s). The idea being created along with this gives distributive qualifications to a 'fading facet of technology. That is 'broadcast cannot expand any longer in its present form. However 'communication CAN.

The suggestion isn't as simple as that of the present copyrighted scenarios depict of themselves. A little examination of specific copyrighted standards will suggest that the omniscience for wich copyright aspects present themselves,are not in tune with the relationship in the components of technology for wich devices are planed to be utilized. That is why would you build a 5000 watt tower,when it is that of necesity you would give the entire 5000 watts to a 'broadcast - wich will certainly only use 5 watts.?!!

The digital realm is just the same.Copyrighted products due to business arrangements,within the practice of 'liscencing, have concluded that there is no such technology wich will be made wich can derive the simplistic effect afforded consumers via its distribution through the technology. In place of realistic expectation of commerce and competitive aspect to the technology by vacating standards wich could be readily apharent as competitive in copyrighted products - the 'liscencing aspect delves deep into the person of the consumer by contriving their person without the technology wich distributively qualifies themselves among consumers.

The presence of a broadcast signal for example does not vacate that person in the extent of 'communicative capacity from utilizing the equipment to its full throttle of presentation. With this the 'grandiose scheme of 'more unexapanding 'film-making,is to be more cunningly a conduit to effect the role the equipment is to take.

Using a 'piracy premise in place of performance among competing products not only does the ideals for this un-imagination presume it has right of roles to that equipment,but it also has the right of deciding what 'legality a consumer is to have without having the consumers forthright relationship to the technology wich is completely related to copyrighted materials express distributive qualifications in that technolgy.

The single product of wich 'broadcast has,cannot as a totality destin the technologies of wich the consumer stands to benifit,but because of its own considerations - cannot benifit.

The basis of wich an anolog or VCR copy,or recording,was never one in wich a relationship for example was necesary to the 'broadcaster between the person making it. It is the same technology wich hollywood would expound as to 'not utilizing via the consumer - WICH IT INTENDS TO USURP THE CONSUMERS RELATIONSHIP to that copy(or recording).

The FCC has not had a case within a court whereby a broadcast via the 'vcr was illegal. But if you look,the present relationship would be one of the choosing between 'communication,and 'broadcast (on their part only),in wich 'BOTH are decided via their own consolidated effect without the role that the difference makes in the person the denote through them. Tying in the usury of wich 'liscence brings,leaving the technology in define to makeup of 'person broadcast/communication and denying a reasonable expecation of competitive commerce wich can take place on the very premise of 'copy/record within the technology - wich is the person of the consumer,and not the person of the broadcast to do so.

The single product of the copyrighted agenda cannot estabolish its own preimenence to these technologies by defining a premise of piracy,while denying the relationship of wich the certain commerce can estabolish in 'communications in the first place.

The idea of 'internet passing of digitally copyrighted works is as well erroneous.The idea here is simply to involve an incorrect premise,and devalue the person of wich the technology is objective to.

And it is the communicative aspect - wich belongs to the consumer in their person. It isn't the broadcast agenda to decide what that person is to be. This is why a different standard needs purposed for copyrighted 'effects within the digital relationship. Since the technology is a variation of wich the person of the consumer stands to gain,especially when being ignored through difference in effect of 'broadcast,and distributive qualifications in that person. Not specifically mentioned through actaul 'criminal law,or 'copyright law - but rationalized as 'business agreement.

The standard within the technology still stands to reason its own person of benifit.

-just talking...

Posted by: ParadigmOdyssey   Posted on: 04/07/04 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• Five Steps to Determine When to Virtualize YourServers VMware Server virtualization isn't just for big companies. Entry-level ... Download Now
• Reducing Server Total Cost of Ownership with VMware Virtualization Software VMware VMware virtualization enables customers to reduce their server TCO and ... Download Now
• The True Costs of Virtual Server Solutions VMware In an economic environment that is repeatedly heralding the message "do ... Download Now