Matt, thanks for the warning preface to your last post. I'm more interested in your first post.
Why do you say that MVSN maxes its profits at 15% penetration of DVD because they earn a fixed sum for every protected DVD sold. Is that not also true for every protected VHS tape sold? If so, the either MVSN makes more from a VHS tape, or from a DVD. In the first case, MVSN is better off if DVD flops, and in the second case, the faster DVD replaces tape the better.
My second question is technical. I understand the concept behind VHS is to introduce small errors to the recording that are unnoticeable in one pass, but on repeated passes they become intolerable. To do this, the errors have to be such that they multiply. I thought for VHS tapes, the process exploited some quirk in the design of the recorders. I doubt that route is open in digital recorders. They could have been designed explicitly to introduce such errors, but if they were, then there would be no patents available to MVSN. If the recorders were all designed to do this, then this would have been part of the agreement b/n the leading players to bring Hollywood, etc. along and the coding would be open to all selling original recorded material.
MVSN sells protection to Murdock's BSky satellite broadcast system in the UK. This can be 'ordinary cryptography.' Is it?
Thanks - AJ> |
