Physical media vs. digital download and DRM
Posted: April 18th, 2009, 0:57
Carrying on from this: http://www.5punk.co.uk/discuss/60658/
The direction is good, but only a start. They really have to think about how people want to use their legitimately-bought stuff.
It shouldn't be hard to put a song on your iPod or play it in your car, share a film to your PS3 or buy a movie online and actually get to watch it more than once. Actually, it never used to be when we were content with taped copies.
A digital-download-providing movie copyright owner gets more bottom-line per sale because there's no physical media to duplicate, can provide a wider library without huge warehouse storage costs (square metres still cost more than megabytes AFIAK) and can actually get money for old titles they thought they'd never get another penny from. That's a gain for them and for us with a wider selection to choose from.
Too often though they see the lost monies from the abusers of the current, rather woeful sytems and overcompensate by grubbing it back from the people who are already paying. That way lies insanity though - will they be charging my friends to watch a film at my house next? Banning all recording devices, or making it so the content is deleted after 7 days like iPlayer? That's a lose for everyone, but mostly for us.
If I look at the IMDB top 250 and say "I want to watch Blade Runner now, and keep it" for say £4, which is probably what I'd pay for a DVD of it - why can't anyone offer me that online? They'd get the money instead of Tesco. That'd be a gain for them. But no - they'll only rent it to us - double gain for them, cumulative loss for us.
The licenses are clear on what we can do with the physical stuff we've bought: Watch it ourselves. Play it at home. Play it at a friend's home as long as we don't charge admission and it's only playing at one location at any one time. Sell it to someone else, relinquishing all ownership of it. Good for us, no difference to them.
Why can't this license be applied to purely digital media? The technology exists to do it, but the knowledge of it within the board rooms perhaps does not. Also the impetus isn't there, as it doesn't directly generate revenue. It'd only be a gain for us.
Second-hand sales of digital media are unlikely to ever be considered, as they reprensent nothing but a loss to the publisher. They're probably not happy about second-hand sales of physical media, but it least it doesn't cost them anything directly such as hosting the new license-holder's details on their database or processing the transfer of the license. Small lose for them.
But with digital downloads, the boot's on the other foot and it's the publishers doing the kicking. They stretch the analogy of a physical item beyond breaking point. You lose the file: tough shit, it's like you lost the CD, buy it again. You pay not for the item, but for the priviledge of downloading it once. Some (EA) even have the gall to charge extra for "download insurance". Gain (although we're supposed to believe it's just covering costs) for them, lose for us.
Digital downloads were supposed to be *better*. But as they are now we lose the benefits of flexible licensing of physical media, and the only gains to be had are for the publishers with reduced costs-per-sale.
Hopefully things will improve, with larger catalogues for us to choose from, more flexible licensing and even tools to help us use the content as we like within the license. That'd be win-win.
I'm not ignorant of the hurdles companies face in delivering an on-demand pay-per-view-and-only-per-view-not-monthly-subscription service - it's hard to put together a business plan when your only income is determined by what fickle customers decide to pay for on a day-to-day basis, but long-term customer satisfaction surely still counts for something in the board room.
Because servers have to be up all the time, whether anyone's currently buying or not - it's a running cost. Perhaps that's why the online Blockbuster (and similar) services offer flexibility only with a monthly subscription charge. However the Blockbuster stores still operate without a monthly fee, yet still have to pay staff and rent costs - does it cost more to run a country-wide internet-only service than thousands of physical stores?
That was just an example of something that seems to unjustifiably cost us more, just because it's on the internet, but I'm really talking about buying, rather than renting content.
Previous incarnations of DRM have perhaps clumsily and unintentionally made us only temporary, nominal owners of things we thought we'd bought outright. It needs to be sorted and clarified what exactly it is we're buying - and prices adjusted dramatically if we're only "renting". Then digital distribution can really take off as the primary and preferred means of content aquistion for publishers and customers alike.
The direction is good, but only a start. They really have to think about how people want to use their legitimately-bought stuff.
It shouldn't be hard to put a song on your iPod or play it in your car, share a film to your PS3 or buy a movie online and actually get to watch it more than once. Actually, it never used to be when we were content with taped copies.
A digital-download-providing movie copyright owner gets more bottom-line per sale because there's no physical media to duplicate, can provide a wider library without huge warehouse storage costs (square metres still cost more than megabytes AFIAK) and can actually get money for old titles they thought they'd never get another penny from. That's a gain for them and for us with a wider selection to choose from.
Too often though they see the lost monies from the abusers of the current, rather woeful sytems and overcompensate by grubbing it back from the people who are already paying. That way lies insanity though - will they be charging my friends to watch a film at my house next? Banning all recording devices, or making it so the content is deleted after 7 days like iPlayer? That's a lose for everyone, but mostly for us.
If I look at the IMDB top 250 and say "I want to watch Blade Runner now, and keep it" for say £4, which is probably what I'd pay for a DVD of it - why can't anyone offer me that online? They'd get the money instead of Tesco. That'd be a gain for them. But no - they'll only rent it to us - double gain for them, cumulative loss for us.
The licenses are clear on what we can do with the physical stuff we've bought: Watch it ourselves. Play it at home. Play it at a friend's home as long as we don't charge admission and it's only playing at one location at any one time. Sell it to someone else, relinquishing all ownership of it. Good for us, no difference to them.
Why can't this license be applied to purely digital media? The technology exists to do it, but the knowledge of it within the board rooms perhaps does not. Also the impetus isn't there, as it doesn't directly generate revenue. It'd only be a gain for us.
Second-hand sales of digital media are unlikely to ever be considered, as they reprensent nothing but a loss to the publisher. They're probably not happy about second-hand sales of physical media, but it least it doesn't cost them anything directly such as hosting the new license-holder's details on their database or processing the transfer of the license. Small lose for them.
But with digital downloads, the boot's on the other foot and it's the publishers doing the kicking. They stretch the analogy of a physical item beyond breaking point. You lose the file: tough shit, it's like you lost the CD, buy it again. You pay not for the item, but for the priviledge of downloading it once. Some (EA) even have the gall to charge extra for "download insurance". Gain (although we're supposed to believe it's just covering costs) for them, lose for us.
Digital downloads were supposed to be *better*. But as they are now we lose the benefits of flexible licensing of physical media, and the only gains to be had are for the publishers with reduced costs-per-sale.
Hopefully things will improve, with larger catalogues for us to choose from, more flexible licensing and even tools to help us use the content as we like within the license. That'd be win-win.
I'm not ignorant of the hurdles companies face in delivering an on-demand pay-per-view-and-only-per-view-not-monthly-subscription service - it's hard to put together a business plan when your only income is determined by what fickle customers decide to pay for on a day-to-day basis, but long-term customer satisfaction surely still counts for something in the board room.
Because servers have to be up all the time, whether anyone's currently buying or not - it's a running cost. Perhaps that's why the online Blockbuster (and similar) services offer flexibility only with a monthly subscription charge. However the Blockbuster stores still operate without a monthly fee, yet still have to pay staff and rent costs - does it cost more to run a country-wide internet-only service than thousands of physical stores?
That was just an example of something that seems to unjustifiably cost us more, just because it's on the internet, but I'm really talking about buying, rather than renting content.
Previous incarnations of DRM have perhaps clumsily and unintentionally made us only temporary, nominal owners of things we thought we'd bought outright. It needs to be sorted and clarified what exactly it is we're buying - and prices adjusted dramatically if we're only "renting". Then digital distribution can really take off as the primary and preferred means of content aquistion for publishers and customers alike.
