Is Sony about to join JVC as a "do not buy" manufacturer? (1 Viewer)

[TheLongshot]

I find it sad that companies never learn. They always think that people are out there to rip them off, that all they will do is copy from other people and never buy their product again. So, they take draconian measures to protect their product, often causing incompatibilitys and being a pain in the butt for the consumer. So, what happens? Those who want to pirate stuff do it anyways, and the average user has their "fair use" rights trounced upon. And the companies still make their money, despite all of the dire predictions they offer up.
The circle begins anew.
Jason
------------------
My DVD Collection

 

[Andy W]

What troubles me most about this new copy protection scheme is the record companies are refusing to identify which CD titles they are incorporating it in. Depriving consumers of such knowledge make it impossible to make informed choices prior to purchase.
If this type of scheme catches on, I believe (IMO) we will move from a system of legally protected ownership of copyrighted material to one of publicly accepted limited usage license of copyrighted material.
I, for one, would never purchase under any circumstance a CD that I want to legally own, but which acts like it has limited license usage capability. Without knowing which titles have this copy protection so that I may avoid purchasing them is anathema to my sensibilities. How can a free market speak if consumers are not allowed to know such basic information as to whether one is paying for ownership of a product or limited usage of a product prior to purchasing it?
You think DIVX added confusion to DVD’s acceptance, albeit briefly, how about this scenario (not the best analogy, but…). What if all DVD players had DIVX capability at DVD’s product launch in 1997, and some software was DIVX format only while some was open DVD format only. And what if the software was not labeled which was open DVD versus which was DIVX, and that both formats were priced the same (assuming DIVX gave you unlimited views on one machine the disc was registered to, but pay-per-view only on all other machines). Let’s also say the rationale for not labeling the different formats would be that all DVD players could play both formats. How could the marketplace resoundingly reject DIVX and embrace open DVD in such an environment? Consumers’ only choices in this scenario would be to reject or accept both (excluding word of mouth communication). Thankfully, the two formats were identifiable, and the market chose the right format to accept (IMO).
Personally, I have no interest in purchasing CDs that I desire to own, but which act like limited license usage products. Given the current environment where I cannot determine which CDs have this (IMO – destructive) copy protection scheme encoded on them so that I may avoid buying them, I feel forced to decide to make no CD purchases at this time until I am able to know without a doubt how I can avoid purchasing the copy protection encoded CDs.
If I am not alone in my thinking and others decide to stop buying CDs for the reason I mentioned above, the record companies stand to lose sales and profits rather than increase profits by trying to eliminate illegal copying activities in such an uncommunicative manner.
The saddest thing about all this, is the record companies are doing this at the expense of 99% (or so) of consumers who do not violate copyright laws in order to protect their potential profits from the 1% (or so) who do violate copyright laws. And it’s a fallacy if the record companies think for a moment that the 1% who do violate copyright protection laws will somehow be stopped from pursuing their illegal activities. In the meantime, the 99% group of honest consumers will be penalized with inferior sounding, limited usage CDs.
To me , this is just another typical knee-jerk overreaction by the record companies to a (probably legitimate) problem, penalizing the vast majority of honest consumers, but will likely have no impact on curtailing illegal activities of dishonest consumers.
As always, all of the above is my humble opinion. Any thoughts pro or con are appreciated. Thank you.

 

[John Morris]

If I am not alone in my thinking and others decide to stop buying CDs for the reason I mentioned above

Boycotting is a good idea, but better yet may be a variation of what I have previously mentioned earlier in this thread. Buy CDs as usual and then make a digital CD copies of those CDs. If you find one you think exhibits the distortion from Macrovision on the copy, simply return the original CD to the store since it is defective. If they offer another of the same disk, take it. Then return that defective disk too. Keep doing it until they offer you your money back. If they question your findings of defect. Walk down to the stereo section of the store with the manager, crank up their most expensive system on display, and let the defective, distorted CD blow their speakers. You may even offer to burn a copy of the defective CD on one of their CD burners to show them that the defective original CD is the culprit. If enough of us do this, there will be thousands of returned CDs sent back to the studios, plus hundreds of Best Buys, Circuit Citys and B&M stores telling the studio to reimburse them for all the damaged speakers.
------------------
Take Care,
merc