|
|
Posted by Ken Moiarty on 04/25/06 14:59
"StsAlive" <two@daybtinternet.com> wrote in message
news:sYKdnRZuU8Z1JNDZRVnyvw@bt.com...
> <snip>
> I suppose it was considered the safer option rather than have home users
> coastering lotsa DVD's.
>
> The other thought is that it does slightly hinder mass production
> copying............though it would be slow one per time it's even
> slowwwweeeeeeerrrrr having to go through that finalizing routine.
>
Yes, I can see the DRM (digital rights management) rationale behind it. But
I'm not so sure that rationale is very sound. I mean, the reasoning seems
to be similar to the idea of banning the legal ownership of handguns by all
citizens in order to significantly cut down on the use of firearms by
criminals. But the career criminal largely figures out how to get around
such measures, proving such to be no more than mere inconveniences, whilst
many a law abiding citizen ends up being needlessly "penalized". It would
seem to me in like manner that many DRM measures seek to curtail digital
functionality to all consumers in the desperate hope of "maybe" reducing
piracy, while those organized criminals who are in the business of digital
content piracy on a genuinely threatening scale, have both, the resources
and the talent to work around most if not all such, largely petty, measures.
Ken
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|