My son is an MD Doctor, and has ordered a Kindle as all of his medical books are available in digital format which we will upload to Kindle. My Kindle was delivered already, but I ordered it immediately once I heard of it. And I have a lot of ebooks I will upload after having Kindle reformat them to make them look perfect, which they do for free. Or they will download them direct to my Kindle for the huge sum of ten cents/book. I also have some six self-written books which I will publish on Kendle free to me. But if someone buys them (I set the price) then Kindle will pay me 35% of what is paid. I have also ordered four books from Kindle, some really big, but all downloaded in less than one minute.

Great information! I didn’t know that the Kindle store was also allowing people to upload stuff to be sold. I think 35% is pretty low. After all, all they have to do is ship out the 1s and 0s; how can that warrant them taking 65%? But still, that is a great way to publish!

-Mike

Epilogue: I understand the Kindle is sold out! Back orders are weeks, if not months, out.

-Mike

The Kindle is a Swindle because all e-books for Kindle have DRM. The problem with DRM often is it locks you to a specific format. If I buy a Kindle I can only play e-books purchased by Amazon for the Kindle and because of the DRM in those electronic books if I ever decide to buy another e-book reader none of my e-books on the Kindle would ever work with another reader because the DRM in those e-books was designed to only allow the files to be opened and read on a Kindle.

See DefectiveByDesign.org’s take on the Kindle. (link: http://www.defectivebydesign.org) they were the first to announce the Swindle in the Kindle.

Amazon doesn’t really care about offering products that are DRM free unless its convenient for them to offer a DRM free solution. Amazon Unbox Video Downloads have DRM and so do Kindle downloads. Amazon MP3’s download store often referred to as Amazon Unbox Music Downloads when looking at a credit card statement (that’s the name of the company charges have to be paid for) is completely DRM free as all its music comes without copy protection and in the open and universally popular MP3 format so it can work in iTunes and on iPods, iPhones, Apple TVs etc (since Apple TV can also play music on the TV), work with Windows Media Player, Microsoft’s Zune software (not the store but the player) and the Zune music player, Windows Mobile phones etc by default that can playback entire songs and other mp3 players like Creative Zen, Toshiba Gigabeat, and all standard and generic mp3 players.

However, when it comes to the Kindle or to Unbox Video Downloads the files are copy protected and work only with Windows. Amazon MP3 even works on Mac OS X and is supposedly also going to be available sometime soon for Linux.

The Kindle too me at first glance from one of the photos of it looks like something Texas Instruments would make and it appears to be a 1980s style device.

You can’t share Kindle e-books with others and until DRM is dumped from all electronic book readers I’ll stick with traditional print books in paperback or hardcover that you can loan to friends who also want to read the same book.

If knowledge is power putting copy protection inside books would make it impossible to share information. The Gutenberg era was excited to have a new book every six months and today the Internet gets a new webpage every 6 seconds.

Technology should make things easier to share information (the point of copy protection in music and video is the music and video companies claimed it was to stop piracy and illegal file sharing via peer to peer sites/services) books are another story publishers have never before insisted on imposing DRM on books. People borrow books from their public libraries or buy new books from their local bookstores which they can also share with friends. When they borrow they just have to make sure to return the book they are renting back in time so they don’t have to pay late fees.

Until e-books are completely DRM free and I can get an e-book reader from Amazon, Sony or any other company without DRM and without the e-books having DRM I’ll just buy traditional books as I said earlier to read.

I am going to have to call you out on this. You don’t seem to mind DRM when it’s in a format you like. You have an iPod and you use iTunes for a lot of your video playback. Why isn’t DRM bad there?

The truth with the Kindle is that you aren’t limited to the Amazon titles. It will display PDFs and you can also send most any kind of file to Amazon to convert to your Kindle format for you. So there is no limitation, any more than there is on an iPod.

The problem with MP3s is that they’re yesterday’s technology. You can save a lot of space by using AAC or WMA formats. But for some reason, the MP3 format (which is licensed, and not open or free) has the biggest toe-hold. Personally, I would prefer to see Amazon give us the choice of what format we would like, just like AllOfMP3.com did (even though that was a site of dubious legality).

But I guess when you have an open MP3, it’s not too tough to re-encode it… even though that degrades the quality.

But back to the Kindle… yes, it’s not going to win any design awards. But the truth of the matter is this. If the early adopters wait for version 2, then there may well never be a version 2. We as consumers must show the manufacturers that there is a market for this product, or else it will die off.

I straddle the fence on the DRM issues you mention. It is way too easy to distribute copies of books because the files are small. So if they are open, then “sharing” becomes stealing very quickly. And Amazon allows portions of books to be downloaded for free. All you have to do is recommend a book to a friend and he or she can get a sample, and then purchase it (which is the right thing to do anyway) if they like it.

So I don’t see sharing as much of a problem. eBooks are cheaper than the print versions anyway. As well, print publishers have a better model with the authors than the RIAA and record labels do, so I don’t mind purchasing books because a good deal of the money goes to the authors themselves. But the evil of the recording labels makes ripping them off less of a big deal, IMO. It’s still illegal, yes, but the immorality of it is diminished.

Okay, enough of the soapbox talk.

My opinion of what you bring up is that I agree that DRM can be a hindrance. But if it doesn’t get in the way (I haven’t heard a single case of a Kindle user not being able to read his purchased content due to DRM), then I don’t see the harm.

Now, the point about moving to another reader is very astute. And Kindle purchasers should be very aware that if they dump the Kindle for, say, the Sony reader, then they will have to repurchase their books. But then, all of us that had cassette tapes had to repurchase our music when CDs came out, so it’s an established method. Caveat emptor.

-Mike

Okay you have a point all DRM is bad and should be considered so. If by buying content from iTunes with DRM and then blasting other DRM systems that makes me a hypocrite I suppose it does seem like a double standard.

In terms of sharing books in print people loan their books to friends to read and when their friends are done reading them they return them to the owner. I’ve borrowed books before and when I’m done I just return it. Except for renting or borrowing of books through public libraries when there is a due date for returning when I borrow from a friend I normally return it at my earliest convenience after finishing the book.

I can see your point that I trash talk DRM from companies other than Apple but if all DRM is bad shouldn’t I also oppose their’s? Your absolutely right to mention that. Saying this was a clever response and I am actually trying to move away now from DRMed iTunes Store purchases. I’ve found the new movie rentals service somewhat useful certainly more useful than iTunes movie sales but am avoiding buying anything more with DRM. I don’t mind renting from iTunes despite the DRM but all DRM is bad. I have found for some users some level of DRM is somewhat tolerable - iTunes DRM for me is tolerable but Sony’s Blu Ray DRM in high definition Blu Ray Discs is highly intolerable and draconian.

On the issue of Kindle purchasers not being able to play Kindle books in future on non Kindle e-book readers like those from Sony and them having to repurchase the book which I find wrong you mentioned as an example that music lovers who bought cassette tapes having to repurchase their music on CD when music CDs came out I’d like to point out the technologies are there today to let you convert cassette tape audio to CD, or MP3s etc you can even convert LPs also known as vinyl or records to CD. Time-shifting is possible while RIAA and the MPAA don’t approve of it; for music CDs in fact it is perfectly legal to even copy them to a computer and as most music CDs don’t have DRM it is very easy to do. On DVDs there is a slight issue of legality for some because the DMCA is supposed to outlaw circumvention of copy protection.

The DMCA has its flaws though. It provides no protections for consumers fair use rights and what’s more in the Sony rootkit fiasco remember how Microsoft provided software to remove the copy protection software by Sony music CDs that were installed in Windows — Microsoft circumvented Sony DRM if Sony wanted to they could probably have sued Microsoft for DMCA violations.
Ultimately Sony developed such a bad PR relation and with the class action consumer lawsuit against them they eventually provided a way themselves to remove the DRM and promised to not only take all DRM infected CDs back and replace them with non DRMed CDs but to stop shipping CDs with DRM.

The issue of copying DVDs with DRM raises a red flag because this basically circumvents the DRM and DMCA is supposed to outlaw this in US.

You say that I don’t seem to mind DRM when its in a format I like but otherwise I blast it and ask shouldn’t all DRM be bad. Again I agree with you in fact I am trying to wean myself off future iTunes Store purchases with DRM I’m fine with movie rentals — I think for rentals to have DRM makes sense but all purchases whether of music, music videos, TV shows, movies, audiobooks etc should be DRM free.

However, buying an Apple TV to play what I’ve already purchased is important to me and I do buy iPods. I don’t like any DRM really but a DRM system made by a company other than Microsoft with no software or hardware ties to Windows Media etc is better.

I trust Apple more than I do Microsoft in providing me consumer electronics and digital entertainment products. iTunes over Windows Media Player and Zune software. Overall I feel sometimes Apple is a more trustworthy company than Microsoft.

There are sometimes I would worry Apple is trying to impose more restrictions on the user than even Microsoft does and are forcing use of specific hardware products — I don’t mind using Macintosh I like it more than Windows and it would be cool if they licensed Mac OS X I’d be able to use it on a traditional PC however, still also use it even on Apple machines but the option of being able to run it on any hardware would let me choose between Mac hardware and PC hardware. If I want Mac OS X I need an Apple Mac. If it were licensed I could use it on custom PCs by Dell, HP, Gateway, Lenovo etc or even PCs I build myself. However, I still like Apple’s designs and would probably still buy a Mac to run OS X even if it could run on non Apple machines as well just because I like buying their computers because of the unique designs they have that other manufacturers don’t.

When Apple makes good hardware products I don’t mind buying them but when Apple restricts you to a certain type of hardware and you need more customization than they allow if the hardware for some reason is bad then I’d avoid it. I have found no bad hardware being made by Apple since Mac OS X launched.

All the hardware for Mac I use I have liked.

I won’t go so far as to say that all DRM is bad. This is copyrighted work, after all, and the real owners deserve the right to protect their property.

But my problems with DRM are many. Most DRM doesn’t stop the real criminals at all. As well, most DRM schemes punish the innocent, treats them all like criminals even if they’re not, and makes it really difficult to enjoy stuff that’s been legitimately purchased.

But I admit, back in the heyday of Napster, I grabbed a LOT of music. I didn’t really know any better. But the advent of DRM and the lawsuits from the RIAA have made me realize more and more the bad things that I’ve done. So I would think that there are probably a LOT of people out there that are just like me that would steal if it weren’t so obvious that it is indeed stealing. Basically, it comes down to this. There are hardcore thieves, which nothing will stop them. And there are casual thieves. DRM stops casual thievery. But it shouldn’t have to be so restrictive to do so.

All in all, the very existence of DRM makes me want to be honest. However, I do wish I could pay bands directly for their music, instead of having so many middlemen getting rich off of the bands’ hard work and talent.

As for sharing eBooks, well, I will say this. If a scheme could be instituted that allowed the same type of borrowing as actual paper books, then I think it should be done (and I also believe it would be done). For instance, I could “loan” you a book I bought, but that act of lending it should take it off my Kindle. That way, there still are still only one copy of the book out there for every one that’s been purchased. Amazon controls the hardware for the Kindle, so they should be able to do this if they’re so motivated.

But the very nature of electronic media means that any number of perfect copies could be made. So if you loan a book to 2 friends, and they each loan to 2 friends, and so on, pretty soon, the author gets paid once for thousands of copies out in cyberspace. Remember, not everyone is as honest as you are.

As for tapes and CDs, you are correct… today. But in the mid-80s when CDs came into vogue, no one had CD burners in their PCs. Heck, CD-Roms weren’t even out yet. My point is that when CDs first appeared, there was no way in the public’s hands of creating them from existing sources of content.

As well, the beauty of the CD is the digital content (which was scarce then, but an AAD CD still sounded way less hissy than a cassette or vinyl record did). So, if you didn’t mind the hiss on your cassettes, go ahead and make CDs from them. But the point was that purchased CDs have a better quality of sound (and a lot of hardcore audiophiles will argue this point), and so the fact that you own a cassette-based album doesn’t entitle you to a free CD of the same album. That’s my point.

You may find it interesting to note that, according to the RIAA, copying (ripping) a CD’s tracks to your computer is 100% illegal.

As well, CDs do not have copy protection for 2 reasons: 1) that standard has been set and adding copy protection now would make millions of CD players unable to play the new CDs, and 2) no one has yet (although many have tried) created a decent copy-protected CD. Remember the Sony rootkit? That was an attempt to copy-protect those audio CDs.

Yes, it would be nice if OSX were available on more platforms. As well, I would like to see more devices use the FairPlay DRM scheme. But Apple will never ever do that because it would be a nightmare.

Let’s go back to the MS telling HP what hardware is best. Apple’s OS works so well because they control the hardware. They can test all the hardware platforms easily since there aren’t that many. But Windows tries to run on a virtually-infinite set of hardware combinations. It’s a miracle that Windows works at all. But when Windows crashes because of a wonky driver, who gets the call? Microsoft, that’s right. And MS has to employ (which means pay) people to take those calls. And that’s why Apple won’t go there. They’re smarter than that.

But the way I see it, iPods are excellent devices, so that’s why no one’s complaining too loudly about Apple keeping FairPlay to themselves. Steve Jobs’ open letter regarding DRM was a diatribe saying basically that: “we won’t license FairPlay, so stop asking.”

But if ever there is a FAR better device than the iPod, but it can’t play iTunes tracks, then I think we’ll see a lot of changing attitudes about iTunes and DRM therein.

-Mike

If it weren’t for iTunes Plus and Amazon MP3 I would go back to peer to peer downloading/file-sharing also commonly called by the movie and music industries as a form of piracy.

I read an article several months back that the real winners in the Blu Ray Disc versus HD DVD battle are movie pirates. Innocent people will turn to piracy each year not given a choice to purchase content without DRM. For example, I’m making it a point to not buy anymore TV shows, music videos, audiobooks, movies or music from iTunes if it has DRM. I will only download content without DRM. Problem is most sites up till recently offering music downloads in DRM free formats had pirated content where you could just download what you want with no DRM and no payment neccessary.

Imagine on peer 2 peer sites I would do a search in music for a specific song (all songs would typically be in DRM free MP3 or WMA) I didn’t have, find the file on someone else’s computer who has chosen to share his library and I just click to download the song Within minutes assuming the download went well the song is on my computer and I can do whatever I want with the copy I have with no restrictions on how I can use it. Now back in the 1990s if Amazon MP3 were around I would have purchased and downloaded music from them.

If paying for content means getting it with DRM I’ll find another way. I don’t want to steal but I don’t want DRM either and if I’m told that I can either pay and accept the DRM that comes with the file or become a pirate and while its wrong to not pay for the content you download/acquire without DRM.

So if you ask me to pay for a movie I want to own but tell me when I do so I’ll be agreeing to accept the DRM I’ll say no thanks I changed my mind I’m not going to buy it if it has DRM. There are lots of new HD movies on the market in Blu Ray and HD DVD etc I would love to own preferrably on HD DVD but after the format war is over. Blu Ray has a nice name but it has too much DRM.

I’ll rather get the latest Spiderman movie on my computer via download from BitTorrent or Grokster etc completely free and then burn my own DVD — it won’t have the special features on it and I wouldn’t be paying for the movie but I would have gotten it DRM free.

Or I could go to India or China and buy a pirated copy of the movie on DVD — when you want a DVD they have a copy of the movie and they burn a disc for you. When I was in India last (I actually visited there sometime ago) I rented the DVD of I Am Legend and was told upon returning to USA that the movie was still in theaters. So I must have rented off the black market. Oh well! I didn’t even realize that until I came back but a friend who lives there said he rents movies all the time the same way and from the same shop we got this DVD and we did pay the person who brought us the DVD.

I didn’t realize the ability to convert audio cassettes to CD was not possible in the 1980s its just became possible in recent years. I would probably prefer no DRM at all.

I’m going to start sticking it up to the record labels and movie studios the following: I will buy no more of their content either via iTunes or on DVD etc unless it is DRM free or unless the DRM is simple enough to circumvent for fair use.

I will buy no more digital music online if it has DRM. Sorry iTunes no more music from iTunes Store unless their iTunes Plus tracks. If my only choices are to buy with the DRM and pirate to get content without it I’ll pirate. I don’t want to pirate but I don’t want DRM. Continued use of DRM will lure me back to piracy.

If I can buy without DRM I’ll buy without. I don’t want to be forced to have DRM when I pay. Consumers can always get around DRM by just finding DRM free versions of songs and videos being offered for free.

Yeah the iPods are really amazing devices and I plan to get a new 6th gen iPod Classic with video when my existing iPod dies. I also have my eyes possibly on the iPod Touch, its a tough choice only problem for me is limited storage on the Touch compared to the Classic.

Someday if a better player does come I would want to buy it and then if my content doesn’t work with it and it probably won’t I’ll be upset with Apple.

DRM does not make me want to be honest. The problem wasn’t lack of DRM in the early Napster days (when Napster was free and offered file-sharing) in the 1990s if Amazon MP3 were around and if iTunes Store were around and had enough iTunes Plus tracks I would buy from either of them. There was no legal alternative to pirated but what most people called free music downloads back then that offered the same features/rights to the user and enabled companies to be paid.

Your entire reply is very interesting! Defective By Design believes the best thing would be to have no DRM at all and just replace peer to peer music sites with Amazon MP3 and the iTunes Store’s iTunes Plus mini-store.

If all music downloaded online was bought and paid for but came without DRM and the same applied for video that would make things a lot better and a whole lot easier for the user. They could use DRM for rentals but purchased content should be entirely DRM free. You still pay for it but don’t get any DRM.

Imagine no DRM at all! The best DRM is the one that works the least. Some think a minimal form of DRM is tolerable and more advanced ones like in Blu Ray are too draconian and others say no to all DRM even the lighter versions.

I just wanted to respond to the following also — sorry for the double post! Yes if ebooks could work like printed books that would be ideal to be able to share the book without giving the file away to a friend to put on their own Kindle. If I want to share a Kindle book with a friend — DRM be damned I’ll just give him my Kindle and let him use it to read the book. Or this may get a little more complicated transfer the file off to his Kindle but a limited form of locking mechanism can be put in place to prevent widespread copying — maybe you can copy it to another Kindle but it temporarily gets disabled on yours until your friend deletes it from his and it can only be copied once to other devices and when your friend returns it if another friend wants it (lets say friend c after friend b gave it back then you could give it to friend c yourself - friends b and c can’t both borrow yours at the same time there is only 1 copy of the book and if you give it to someone else you won’t have it anymore till they return it — if friend b wants to give to friend c then friend b cannot make a second copy for friend c friend b must give up the copy to friend c. I think just loaning your own Kindle to another without moving to other KIndles would be better.

As for sharing eBooks, well, I will say this. If a scheme could be instituted that allowed the same type of borrowing as actual paper books, then I think it should be done (and I also believe it would be done). For instance, I could “loan” you a book I bought, but that act of lending it should take it off my Kindle.

That way, there still are still only one copy of the book out there for every one that’s been purchased. Amazon controls the hardware for the Kindle, so they should be able to do this if they’re so motivated.

But the very nature of electronic media means that any number of perfect copies could be made. So if you loan a book to 2 friends, and they each loan to 2 friends, and so on, pretty soon, the author gets paid once for thousands of copies out in cyberspace. Remember, not everyone is as honest as you are.

Well, as I say, if DRM doesn’t get in the way, then I have no problem with it. But it does get in the way a lot.

What I said about the cassette tape and CD thing is a good point to make. That was a change in format, which consumers could (and should) very well be made to pay for.

Consider I purchased a track of a song that’s in stereo. Then a version of the same song comes out in quadrophonic, do I have the right to get the new version for free? I don’t believe so.

That’s my biggest problem with DRM, that you can’t always take your purchased things with you to a new player. But there are some other factors that I take into account. First, you can’t say that the only way to get a track is P2P. You can go buy the CD, which is the right thing to do if you want it but can’t find it on legitimate download sites. But there is the idea that some music and other audio is no longer offered. There was one album that I had in the 80s on cassette which was never put on CD. Is it okay to download it from P2P sites then? I think it is, because if the labels aren’t selling it, then it should be in the open domain.

Eventually, they put the album on CD and I bought it, so it all worked out. But that’s one great thing about P2P is that you can find out-of-production works. But to me the reality is that selling electronic media tracks is dirt cheap and easy, so the record labels should offer everything they’ve ever sold online. There is a lot of old lost stuff out there that new generations can love (and buy, hint hint).

I agree about the BluRay and HD-DVD war… I am staying out because right now the consumer loses.

I do have a laptop that has an HD-DVD drive, and on a lark I figured I could hook it up to my TV via HDMI and play HD-DVD discs (which I could easily get from Netflix). But guess what. Something in the system makes it not work. And I am certain that the issue lies in the complexity of having to decode the DRM for playback. So, I wasted money on the HD-DVD disc that I bought, I can’t play it, and it’s not stopping the real pirates at all. That stinks.

Your idea about sharing Kindles certainly works, but it’s insanity. I got dizzy reading it. Giving someone your Kindle is like loaning them a book but they take your entire library in the process. While your friend has your Kindle, you can’t read all your other downloaded books, you know.

The way I understand it, each Kindle is tied to a unique account with a Kindle ID. It should be easy for you and I to swap IDs so that I can tell Amazon essentially, “please let ID= have this book I purchased.” Then you could keep it forever, if it was a gift (which is another great idea), or when you’re done with it, you just give it back the same way. But in doing so, it erases it from the lender’s Kindle and places it in the lendee’s download queue, just as if they’d purchased it themselves.

I think that’s a very workable plan. And since Amazon controls the hardware and the software and the content, they should easily be able to do it.

Of course, people will hack their Kindles to prevent this, but that’s piracy, which is illegal.

In the end, if they can make reasonable attempts at keeping the number of ebook files the same as the number which have been purchased, then it will be just like the paper versions.

The Kindle has a ways to go to be perfect, but it seems to be the best we’ve got right now. People seem to be loving it, as the Kindle is back-ordered for months.

-Mike

I agree in large part with the above comment. The thing is if I didn’t have to pay again for the same content (time-shifting has been considered a fair use right that consumers have been exercising for a long time — what if I made a home movie in VHS — its my own home movie I filmed myself and then want a DVD of it I can record it to DVD and in the same way I should be able to convert purchased movies on VHS 2 DVD and can with a VCR/DVD recorder or USB based digital video recorder that plugs into the computer; if I don’t have to pay again I can save my money to buy something I don’t already own!

When I have the Star Wars Trilogy already on VHS instead of paying for the DVD pack of the Star Wars Trilogy I can save my money and buy a movie on DVD I don’t already own and then convert the VHS of Star Wars to DVD. At least I bought it once — being forced to buy it again makes no sense for the user and is frustrating. Its wasteful to buy the same thing again when you already have it even on another format.

Your right the description I gave of Kindle sharing is very complicated (or as you put it insanity) its just too complex even if its workable. I’m sure a better solution could be implemented that I haven’t thought of that is more sane and works just as well. Amazon would just have to agree to let it happen!

I was aware that giving your Kindle away to a friend to use means I would be unable to read my other e-books. That’s how the idea of transferring to a friend’s Kindle came into the picture but how to prevent a friend from massive sharing of the same e-book is the problem that would have to be worked out. Without DRM it would be tough to protect the books from being shared by too many people at once.

Problem is DRM is still frustrating for the consumer!

For the most part, transferring a VHS tape to a DVD (or a cassette tape to a CD) is fine. But the quality doesn’t magically increase.

What I am saying is that just because you own the Star Wars Trilogy on VHS doesn’t mean you should be able to demand, for free, that they send you the DVDs of the same movies. Nor does it mean that you are legally justified in downloading a digital version of those movies.

But transferring from VHS to DVD isn’t as easy as you may think, for copyrighted content. There’s Macrovision on most VHS tapes, which most recorders will seriously degrade the quality of the recording if it detects Macrovision in the signal.

As for taking your own created content, of course you have every right to move that media around however you wish. Copyright laws, in this case, only pertain to work that others have created.

-Mike

I would be careful about time-shifting purchased content on VHS 2 DVD if there is copy protection on the VHS tape. I know Macrovision has supplied some form of copy protection on VHS tapes in the past but I have never encountered it on the tapes I own. Maybe it only shows up when trying to convert? So anyways yeah I wouldn’t want the quality degraded so would be as careful as possible. At this stage I am just converting home movies from VHS 2 DVD which is far more acceptable — every right is given for this when its your own content but have been interested in doing the same with some of the movies I own.

You have some good and valid points on the legality of downloading for free a digital copy of a movie already owned on VHS for example and then burning that digital copy to DVD has some issues of legality — it is expected that if you want the DVD you still have to pay for the DVD even if you already have the VHS version you don’t get the DVDs also for free.

I’m not sure you’re using the term “time-shifting” correctly.

Time-shifting refers to the idea that consumers can record television to watch when they want to. It also refers to the idea of pausing live television. Basically, you’re shifting the time in which you watch it away from the originally-intended time that the networks dictated.

There’s also “place-shifting” which means taking content on-the-road portably, such as on an iPod. But I think it refers more to such things as the Slingbox, which allows you to watch your home TV over the internet to any location. Networks also dictate where certain things are shown (such as news, sporting events, etc.) and when you break out of those dictates, that’s place-shifting.

Macrovision is an old standard, so it may have been abandoned, especially when DVDs hit the scene. The recording device has to be Macrovision aware, anyway, so if it isn’t, then it might ignore it and allow a decent analog recording.

-Mike

I was using time shifting in the sense you move content from one format to another like converting VHS 2 DVD rather than going out and buying a DVD after having had the VHS version already.

Your right though according to the technical definition of time-shifting I’m not using it correctly in that sense. The idea of consumers recording television to watch when they want to and being able to pause live television is also a good idea and likeable for consumers. That idea appeals to me also! Switching the time away from when the networks dictated that I can watch it to whenever I want to is best.

That’s good news about the Macrovision stuff being abandoned that means its more possible to convert purchased VHS tapes in the past few years before DVDs replaced it — so as you said I could get a decent analog recording.

I’m not saying Macrovision was abandoned. I just postulated that since you don’t have any troubles making analog copies of your purchased VHS tapes, that perhaps it may have been abandoned.

It does make sense. No one really uses VHS tapes much anymore. I have 2 VCRs, but I don’t think either of them has been used in many years. They’re just in a closet, gathering dust. So perhaps the maufacturers of recording hardware aren’t looking for the Macrovision signal anymore.

-Mike

Oh okay so your not saying it was officially abandoned but Macrovision technology was possibly abandoned. Even then if that’s the case then yeah it would be much easier and better to get a good analog capture of purchased VHS tapes.