A percentage of them don’t, even a number of commercial releases. I’m quite familiar with this.
Unprotected dvd’s don’t need to be ripped first. You are confusing re-encoding the video with ripping, they aren’t the same things. Often tools offer both, but the ripping is done automatically and requires no action on the users part. Like i said the technical hurdle for these people is encoding video, not ripping the content, so DRM plays absolutely no role in their lack of ability to reencode the video.
There is, or their would be if it were legal. Right now anyone who wants discs from another region usually has to purchase them directly from that region. There is quite a large group of people doing this, the anime community is just one of many groups that import other region dvd.
fair enough. I was really only meaning to point out the ridiculousness of your previous point, and that any price discrimination that gives paying customers the worst version is horrible.
That is incorrect. Using DRM costs money, and every digital music retailer that has dropped DRM has seen a significant jump is sales.
No, not that long really. DRM was invented in 1983 but wasn’t used in a commercial product until quite a bit later. Might i suggest learning about what you are defending so that you don’t make mistaken arguments: Digital rights management - Wikipedia
Because this is wrong. It is your personal incorrect assumption with little knowledge of the subject. The opposite has been shown to be true.
fair enough, i will. you need to educate yourself about [DRM][1].
by market failure i meant the complete failure of a capitalist markets ability to self regulate due to a monopolistic stranglehold, heavy handed anti-consumer practices that only hurt and alienate paying customers who don’t have any alternate, and the general failure to meet any of the initial goals of implementation, call it what you will, that was what i was meaning.
Every company that has used DRM and dropped it. Every single one.
This would be true if your assumptions about DRM were correct, but they are not.
Because we aren’t those kind of a**holes. We stand for what we believe in, we don’t sell out out morals for quick profit. I know i’m not and i’m pretty sure from @teapot 's posts that they are not either.
No I’m not. That is incorrect. Modern DRM schemes require that media be licensed and the license can be revoked at any point. It is built into how modern DRM schemes work as I clearly explain. Can you name one modern DRM scheme that is not bound to licensed media?
Your fundamental assumptions and arguments about DRM are incorrect.
