<![CDATA[Straight From Sam Walton's Mouth: New Details on Wal-Mart Movie Download Service - Gizmodo Comments]]> <![CDATA[Straight From Sam Walton's Mouth: New Details on Wal-Mart Movie Download Service - Gizmodo Comments]]> <![CDATA[Straight From Sam Walton's Mouth: New Details on Wal-Mart Movie Download Service]]> Thanks Matt, for the last most important paragraph of your article. Sadly, the last paragraph should be the first, and last to any argument about distribution of copywrited content (music, movies, books). The classical safeguarders of that-traditionaly the BMI, WarnerBros, Disneys, ad finitum, are actually the ones responsible for this mess...and are the ones who are rightly to blame. Mr jobs said it rather loudly, finally, yesterday, you dribbled upon it in your last paragraph. but, there IS NO ARGUEMENT about DRM without it bing told who is DEMANDIDING DRM-namely those age old, crumbling institutional systems that we have come to know as 'record companies', 'movie studios' and the like, who steal from both the amazing artist who rightfully should get paid more directly for their cultural contribution to humanity, AND the public at large, who would prefer to pay a dollar to the musician to hear his song than 20 to the record company who will 'commoditize' the artist, and eventually pay him 50 cents for the service of distribution.
Rant, i know, but would prefer if we all really kept it together and simply attacked attacked attacked the record and movie companies. Even attacking the RIAA is wasting bullets.
Thanks mr jobs for directing the argument back to where it needs to be. Move the last paragraph up to the top please.

thistle

]]> <![CDATA[Straight From Sam Walton's Mouth: New Details on Wal-Mart Movie Download Service]]> Straight from Sam Walton's mouth? I thought the only thing coming from his mouth these days were maggots.

CafeRacer1200

]]> <![CDATA[Straight From Sam Walton's Mouth: New Details on Wal-Mart Movie Download Service]]> I think this quite convincingly proves studios are not interested in copyright but money. They "want" you to have a portable version of the physical DVD you own, only they want a little money for it.

CSS on DVDs (the DRM) is simply a way for them to put more money in their pockets from legal owners, not a way for them to prevent copyright infringement. They obviously have no problem with people putting a DVD on a portable or having a digital copy of something they own. The problem they have is people doing is for themselves. If people do it for themselves there is no money to be had by the studios.

Nothing has changed. You still own the DVD. You still have a digital copy. The only difference is they can reach into your piggy bank a little.

DRM is bullshit.

LD

]]> <![CDATA[Straight From Sam Walton's Mouth: New Details on Wal-Mart Movie Download Service]]> Gay. If you bought the DVD you can make it into a portable with not cost to you and no legal infringements.

daftrok

]]> <![CDATA[Straight From Sam Walton's Mouth: New Details on Wal-Mart Movie Download Service]]> Synopsis:
Look at my shit!. I know its ugly and smells bad, but I promise I'm going to polish it up and make it a shiny shit real soon!.

calebc

]]>