And this changes anything, how?
(sigh) I see I'm making a liar out of myself by responding once more, but I feel several things need to be made clear once and for all.
It changes things because there's a very real price difference between buying something and renting it. You are suggesting that it's OK that movies are pulled from iTunes because I can go out and buy a movie on DVD in standard definition (which I do not want) or have to buy a Blu-ray player and then buy the movie for $25+ OR drive 50 miles to the nearest Blockbuster that rents Blu-ray movies when all I want to do is watch a movie like Superbad in HD off AppleTV on iTunes for $4.99 (or $3.99). The DIFFERENCE is both cost and convenience. I have a 93" screen. I don't want to watch standard definition any longer. I tend to watch movies ONCE unless I really like them a lot so renting make much more sense than buying movies. AppleTV provided a very viable appreciated model to watch movies then at $4.99 for a new HD movie rental in an area with little Blu-ray support at this time and very few movie rental places in general. The idea I should get in my car and drive an hour each way to a place that rents HD movies just because some company decided to remove their movies from iTunes creates a poor customer satisfaction level.
What does Napster have to do with distribution agreements between content providers?
I'll answer the question, but you seem to have magically forgotten the previous topic at hand, which was what does piracy have to do with such agreements. The original Napster versus a store like iTunes is the piracy example. The link is established between PIRACY and AVAILABILITY and the CONSUMER's behavior thereof through that example and it has been noted by the news many times. The (original) Napster was accused of being a major piracy hub for music. After being disbanded in its original incarnation, it was followed up by Limewire and Bit Torrent, which are both still active today. The news regularly accused the US of being a "Piracy Nation" with polled estimates at well over 50% of the population having downloaded illegal music. But the percentages of people pirating music DROPPED in a VERY significant fashion when online stores like iTunes opened up making it easy to purchase LEGITIMATE online music for a reasonable price (typically 99 cents). In other words, it became clear that given a choice between being a criminal and paying for music, most of the supposed criminals were willing to pay for their music. So why did they do it? They were NOT willing to spend $18+ on a CD for ONE song, however (i.e. people take action of some kind when they feel they are being utterly ripped off; furthermore most people make a distinction between digital COPYING and actual material theft as does the law, which is why it's called 'copyright' law and not THEFT except by those out there that either don't understand or don't believe there is a difference).
The point is that the music industry failed to make online song-by-song music AVAILABLE and so people took matters into their own hands. Call them criminals anyway if you wish, but it's beside the point. What this example shows is that IF companies make their products available for reasonable prices, people will BUY them. If they do NOT make them available (say by removing them from online purchase availability such as the iTunes example stated in this thread), many people will pirate them rather than be forced to buy or watch it on a format they have NO interest in (be it Blu-ray or HBO, it doesn't matter). The lesson here is if you give the consumer what he wants, he'll reward you with his support. If you ignore what the consumer wants, then you will pay the consequences (be it no sales or piracy). THAT is the lesson of Napster versus iTunes.
You can say that they shouldn't behave that way, but this is a report of the way people behave much in the way National Geographic would report how animals behave. If a company wants to make sales and not tick off their potential consumers, they need to make decisions that take the consumer into account, not disregard them entirely for a quick sale to another company. Yet, that is their choice. What doesn't make sense, however, is when they COMPLAIN about such "loss of sales" when in fact they are not making it EASY to buy their product. Ignore the consumer and he will not buy your product. It's that simple.
Is that clear enough yet or is my link of piracy to company distribution agreements still not plain enough for you? Is what I'm saying stupid to your eyes or what? Does the fact that even members of these forums openly stating they are going back to Bit Torrent to get movies since they aren't available on iTunes any longer not an indication of such a link?
Geeze, I can't wait to see your reply that grinds that simple concept into twisted shreds and tries to make it say something stupid instead of what it actually says. That seems to be your specialty.
These agreements and their exclusivity terms predate Napster, predate the Internet, and predate the entire piracy debate itself. Or is Napster somehow proof of deals between movie studios and ABC in the 1960s, too, in a case of time-traveling inanity?
WTF?! Do you even know what this thread is about? It's about ONLINE availability of movies and in a related fashion, music. Are you suggesting that iTunes and the Internet existed in the 1960's? Did the VCR for that matter? NO. The MANNER the public uses will depend on the state of technology (the path of least resistance). The fact that a lack of home recording and playback technology in the '60s promoted more movie ticket sales has NOTHING TO DO with iTunes availability and the public's reaction in 2008!
This remark just goes to show HOW FAR off course you are willing to go to steer around the actual issues just so your argument some way some how still holds a bit of water. Unfortunately, it's obvious to all that 1960 legal agreements have NOTHING TO DO with ones in 2008 because the world has changed.
The DMCA does not apply to users making lawful, archival backups. Moreover, no one has even tried to sue a private individual for that reason.
The devil is in the details, not the surface bits you quote, but ignore the whole.
Regarding the legality of bypassing CSS for ANY proposed court defended reason (all were shot down with a 'watch' on one of them placed for reporting purposes):
http://cryptome.info/dmca-dvd.htm
This page shows that while backups might be legal, the programs used to back them up are NOT:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD_Decrypter
Furthermore, Jon Johansen was prosecuted (in Norway) for the DeCSS debacle, but was acquitted under Norway Law (apparently they are more sensible than the U.S.). If he ever came to the U.S., he would be prosecuted under the anti-circumvention clauses of the DMCA. That doesn't mean you are legally allowed to back up DVDs in the U.S., save a recent licensed Real player at considerable cost and which adds even more DRM in the process.
Because your accuracy and knowledge in that is as limited as everything else you've had to say in this protracted personal fight against me.
I would say it's your accuracy knowledge that are in question. And there's nothing personal going on here from my side other than my personal assessment of your intractable ego. You seem to pop into various threads where I give my opinion on a topic and start attacking me, all while admitted you have "contempt" for me. Well golly gee, it doesn't take a rocket scientists to figure out who is the attacker here.
Once again, the devil is in the details. While it is apparently legal for you to make a backup of a DVD, the tools to make those backups are ILLEGAL so it is impossible for you to legally make that backup short of writing your own software to do so. Even then, there is no legal way (short of buying a license) to get the deCSS code needed to enable that software to be able to backup the DVD. An explanation is provided here:
http://www.aprogrammingpro.com/2008/10/13/is-it-legal-to-make-backup-copies-of-dvds-you-own/
Thus, the industry will go after companies trying to make backup programs for DVDs available to the consumer as those are quite illegal. So perhaps you could tell me how I can legally backup a DVD without the requisite software needed, which is illegal under the DMCA?
While you waste my time trying to make it appear like I'm stupid (mostly to people who couldn't care less what either of us have to say) and causing me to have to point out where you are wrong and where I got my information, I could be spending my time doing more useful things like working on my next pinball game. So excuse me, but I'm done here.
