RE: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] DVd saga... over?

[Michael <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

Intellectual property has always been a stupid idea and with technology it
becomes more stupid every day. It's its own worst enemy. I don't think
you'll ever convince suits that they are fighting a lossing battle
though. I for one never saw the point of slowing down the creation process
with a lot of red tape. By the time somebody steals one idea from me I'm
sure I'll have came up with another few dozen. It's not like there is a
limited supply of innovation. There is no economy of intellect. Sure it is
slightly different with art than science but overall the same logic holds
true.

*^*^*^*
Michael McGlothlin <EMAIL:PROTECTED>
http://www.kavlon.com

> Okay, here's the question. If the VCR removes the macrovision, then if I
> connect straight up to the TV, I will be blocked from seeing the content I
> have viewing rights to. Correct?
> So the TV has to remove it. If I have an older TV that was bought before
> macrovision, and so it does not have the filter hardware, I must buy an
> external filter. Wait a second, what are they going to do? Make me buy a new
> TV? This whole thing seams kind of stupid. If I were to record the
> macrovision signal completely, I should be able to repeat it in a way that
> behaves as the original, and defeats the "Copy protection".
> Don't these people understand that natural law precludes copy protection.
> Man can't dictate laws to govern nature. Nature is the final authority in
> all matters, and there are no loopholes. :-) If we ever find a way to
> "Break" a law of nature, it's not that it has been broken, it's that we did
> not understand it well enough in the first place. And always remember " Do
> not try to bend the spoon with your mind. That is impossible. Instead, try
> to realize, there is no spoon."
> I think the problem is that people have not dealt with these concepts
> before. There are some laws in information theory, but they bury them. Every
> one knows that matter and energy can neither be created or destroyed, but do
> they know that some problems are not computable, or why. The proof of all of
> this is a little complex, but the principles are not too difficult. At the
> same time, I'd like to put forward the theory that any thing that can be
> viewed can be recorded, barring quality issues determined by the resources
> available. Any thing that can be recorded can be reviewed by putting that
> information back into the system at the point it was removed, unless the
> recording becomes destroyed or corrupted after the fact. Time could become a
> parameter, but then if it's a parameter, it would have to be part of the
> definition of the point where the signal was removed and should be put back
> into the system. I don't know. Do you think it's a sound concept?

--
To manage your subscription, go to http://mlug.missouri.edu/members/edit.php

Archives are available at http://mlug.missouri.edu/list-archives/