The rethinking of computer security

TalkBack 17 of 20:: Next »; « Previous

Thread View
Flat View

Protecting Assets: isn't a business only preposition. Persons utilizing DRM need more robust applications wich respect the usage within its environment. Computer changes,moving file(s)from computer to computer , letting consumer ''in''on what those DRM 'disable messages are !!!. You dont need control of persons assets in order to have them secure !!! If business can understand this they can also recognize that asset is a plural to those that have them (assets). I mean a DRM player disabling some 400 files wich cost the consumer 1$ apiece is going to have to respond with some kind of respect of that ,and relevent the aspect of 'asset in kind to consumers that spend their cash doing so.

Hollywood,Music Labels have got to realize that nobody gave them rights when people bought their CDs,DVDs or previous technologies for music in particular. They spent their money,and that is an asset to them. There is not a unkindly arranged dwarf that came out when the media changed hands to stab at somebodies heels. Music vendors at cash registers do not ask for your home address,your living arrangement,or your monetary abiltity for spending cash,..nor do they collect the name of your person,or the total of your collections as in asset.

If hollywood is serious about secure digital files,they will recognize that first there needs to be a product wich suffices to keep assets secure. If it is as now the question of asset is retained through agreement of 'liscence,and denie the benifit of these goods. They can consider the security has nothing to do with the consumer,and neither will the monies they spend of when an asset is wished when it is music,or media involved.

Protect consumer assets by having a product that does so.

.just talking.; Posted by: ParadigmOdyssey Posted on: 03/10/04 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use