Re: Analog Hole Bill Would Require Secret Tech No One Can Examine
- From: Ian Stirling <root@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 24 Jan 2006 08:31:32 GMT
John Larkin <jjlarkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 23 Jan 2006 17:49:41 -0800, Winfield Hill
> <Winfield_member@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>The upcoming Analog Hole bill would require secret, expensive
>>technology that no one can examine, and or talk about if they
>>have, even after paying a $10,000 fee, according to techdirt,
>>http://techdirt.com/articles/20060123/1352234_F.shtml
>
> They'll never make it mandatory for general-purpose sar adc chips to
> search for watermarks. And you can always make an audio-quality [1]
> delta-sigma in an FPGA. But why do you think it important to be able
> to bootleg someone else's intellectual property? If you don't like the
> product, don't buy it.
Bootlegging fine.
Not being able to play content on my monitor, on an otherwise capable
system, when I haven't got the money to upgrade right now?
That's not bootlegging, that's bypassing insanity.
.
- References:
- Analog Hole Bill Would Require Secret Tech No One Can Examine
- From: Winfield Hill
- Re: Analog Hole Bill Would Require Secret Tech No One Can Examine
- From: John Larkin
- Analog Hole Bill Would Require Secret Tech No One Can Examine
- Prev by Date: Re: Power Supply Design
- Next by Date: Re: Power Supply Design
- Previous by thread: Re: Analog Hole Bill Would Require Secret Tech No One Can Examine
- Next by thread: Re: Analog Hole Bill Would Require Secret Tech No One Can Examine
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading