Quote:
Originally Posted by c1rcle
I agree it does sound like I'm saying that, it just seems to me that these people are getting more & more greedy every day, How many times do they want to be paid for the same thing? I have a film (paid for) I have a DVD drive including player software (licensed & paid for) I choose to use a different OS that doesn't need the licensed software so I'm a criminal? I'm not the one charging twice for a product am I?
|
Thing is, the license for decrypting DVD's is to pay for the development of that encryption, you're not being charged twice.
Without it, there wouldn't any point in developing it, I mean, would you let your company invest thousands of pounds in a technology that you could make no money from?
It's not the Entertainment companies that get the money when you by WinDVD for instance, but some of the money goes for the payment of the decryption license.
To do it without license is on a par with piracy and theft in that you're getting something without the people who put their hard work into it getting anything for it.
And your wrong, no matter what you do need the licensed software to play it to remain fair and legal.
Suse and Redhat still offer no native encrypted DVD playability from what I can see, so you still have to go through the fun (or pain) of installing libdvdcss etc to get things working.
It depends on your outlook on fairness, should a company be paid back for their development of technology, or is it ok just to rip them off?