Real's scramble points to isolation

TalkBack 15 of 24:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

Separate The Parties From Their Convictions

As with 'Microsofts 'DRM - this has to do with what 'Microsoft uses for DRM AND what Music Producers 'BELIEVE the DRM DOES FOR THEM.

However WHAT THE MEDIA DOES FOR THE CONSUMER has not been a big consideration either for the 'distibuter in lieu, or for the 'technology in 'feature.

A LOT of what the media does is dependent on how that software is utilized. Developing a DRM (or lets create something 'utilized by Media cos.) wich is based on the 'consumer end premise rather than the 'media end (DRM premise) would be a big + for anybody doing so.

Of course nobody can notice this if they cannot either by previous agreement,or accord in its benifit do so. But if there was players wich would simply 'SHOW WHAT IS OFFERED of the digital faculty. Have MEDIA with the same 'CHECK OFF, then provide that competitive benifactor both for the Media and Consumer - in piece or part there would be the design commerce could 'live with.

For 'downloading,or 'Digital Music Files ,.. Real could certainly use its own format. For now Reals rhapsody is just as 'off the wall with the diversion of confusing 'digital rights with 'consumer performance of goods as Microsoft is.

Neither the both of them should confuse this point. The consumer needs not be a party to the protection of the copyrighted material(s). The consumer needs only the choice to choose what that product represents ,and duly noted,be generally satified with what that representation means in 'good value,performance,receipt, and commerce.

Making the consumer a party to the DRM as it is now only stems to create the condition for creating the 'party of condition in 'player,or playback, when actually consumer does need only the party of patronage purchase and receipt.

Media also believes it is 'getting by"" with this 'liscencing afuendos - where the 'liscence greets the products performance . But hello has any CD,DVD,phono,or product been sold to a consumer as a liscence ? No. The fact is it is enuendo to the 'party,party to create the illusion that these are 'DOING SOMETHING to rest the asumption in legality to the terms of distibuting 'digital files of copyright work(s).

Guess what consumers dont care !!! If Microsoft seems justified through a derivative contract to pass along its field of view for a 'security feature within 'software interactivity with Media companies - Microsoft will be certainly entertained by its assesment as member to that arrangement. And media companies can rest assured that that is what they entered into.

But so far,nobody,has come into conclusion that the specification for functionality and security belong within the same reference in end-use as that wich can be concluded via choice of its user.

IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THE GOOD THAT IS BEING COMMERCED TO.

If it was that specification was within the grasp of consumer to make that choice the security would follow that specification.

Real could do plenty. I am off the wall with the just a bit. But that is all that is necesary . Change the idea of liscence to 'digital receipt. Make the 'player except 'digital receipt. Create the condition of wich the 'features of the copyrighted work,are the inspection and notice of the purchased good. Give a little credit to the relationship of 'ownership of what is purchased.

When you think about it.Dont HAVE to be SELLING LISCENCES. The asset the consumer 'owns is sound on its good. And the 'Liscence doesn't have to be an abstract due to the communicative curcumstance of 'digital,or 'internet in wich 'distributive welfare is detail of the copyright.

Just 'put a (c) on the receipt.And give us the change.

But your going to have to create that pallet of artistic brush of wich the copyrighted works author can create that digital wellbeing with. It means the specifics of wich the digital copyright effects can be clasified ,e .g. copy,device to device,streaming,storage computer to computer, internet sharing - to the same as the utility can be expected of the good the consumer can be aware of.

The liscencing effects with 'media are doing the 'safe ideals now. There is very little risk in creating these 'contractual style afuendos where there is no person in product to answer to or question between the same as something to choose between to its competitive consuming good.

Apple,Microsoft - all of the media conglomerates using them. You are all pretty weak. And this is a fact. Because you have a product,and you do not require anything than to rest in a fact that the product performs. And there is a product with wich to do so.

Dont need to liscence jack squat.

.just talking.

Posted by: ParadigmOdyssey   Posted on: 04/15/04 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

• Integrating OpenNMS with OpenManage Server Agent to Manage Dell PowerEdge Servers Running Linux Dell Enterprises that adopt the Red Hat Linux operating system (OS) and run it ... Download Now
• Live Webcast: Activate Today! Realize ROI with Intel(r) vPro Technology and Symantec Altiris Intel Join the team from the Intel vPro Expert Center for an informative Webcast ... Download Now
• eBook - How to Drive Better Business Outcomes with Exceptional Web Experiences IBM Today's businesses stand to benefit by implementing an enterprise-class ... Download Now