On 10/17/2005 06:16 AM, Ken Schneider wrote:
On Mon, 2005-10-17 at 00:00 -0600, Darryl Gregorash wrote:
On 10/16/2005 02:56 PM, Nick Zentena wrote:
On Sunday 16 October 2005 16:49, Dylan wrote:
You mean you a willing to pay a company for their product, then pay them AGAIN for the right to use it? <snip>
The correct analogy is, "do you pay the farmer again, when you use your stove to cook the food you already paid for?" Also appropriate would be, "is Maytag forced to pay the farmer a royalty when it sells you the stove?"
If someone comes up with a way to read a DVD without the use of a DVD player, then the stove becomes irrelevant. After all, food can still be eaten raw.
Yes but you cannot view a DVD without the correct software/hardware. And the analogy does not fit because first you are paying the movie studio for the DVD (which pays the actors, film studio's cut etc.) then you are paying to be able to view the DVD (codec licence). Everybody wants their piece of the pie.
Let me see... the guy that sells you the licence to watch the movie (you don't actually buy the content of the movie, after all) then turns round and tells him you have to pay him again (who else do you think owns the codec patents?) for a licence for a secret decoder ring that will enable you to read the data in a *meaningful* way. Or am I purchasing some form of licence other than a licence to watch teh movie, when I buy the movie DVD?