Why are media giants so afraid of technology?

50

This article is by Shannon Pace, a local government ‘IT Crowd’ impersonator (you choose which one). He was around before the internet began and was there when NCSA Mosaic was king of browsers. Shannon can’t be found on Twitter, and is always on the lookout for interesting podcasts. The views expressed here are his own, thankfully.

opinion I am constantly wondering why media companies (music, TV and film), particularly Australian companies, are so afraid of new technology.

It is commonplace now to read articles in IT-related blogs and journals about this media company or that media company launching lawsuit after lawsuit, trying to combat the pirates who so gleefully rape and pillage the media industries of their hard-earned money.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying for one moment that piracy is an acceptable practice. It’s not and should be stopped. However, what our media companies should take from the popularity of piracy, even in Australia, is how this new medium (the big, bad Internet) can be used as a distribution channel for the new generation of media consumer.

When talking about the new distribution channel, I am largely talking about BitTorrent technology, but it applies to downloading media in general over the internet.

From my personal experience, the ‘pirates’ that I know are small fry, just grabbing TV shows, music and films for their own personal use and not for mass scale distribution. On asking these ‘pirates’ why they choose to participate in this type of activity, three themes become abundantly clear; Firstly, this type of media consumption is easy, secondly, it’s cheap and finally, it allows for easier viewing on a multitude of devices, both in the home and on the move.

Upon asking these consumers if they would pay for such media if this type of distribution model was more commonplace, more often than not the answer is yes, as long as the price was reasonable.

Here’s one idea on how this can be achieved: What if the Seven Network, for example, launched a new service where for $5 a month, subscribers could download their favourite TV shows in acceptable formats to watch in their own time, with an advertisement or two built in. Up the price to $10 and you could offer these same programs, advertisement-free and in full High Definition (if and when available), all the while using BitTorrent technology to deliver it to users.

This would allow users who are already familiar with torrenting technology to consume their chosen media without fear of reprisal and be able to enjoy it on a multitude of devices.

Here’s another idea: What if Channel 9, in partnership with Fox Sports, came up with a combined offering where for a yearly fee (say, $50), they would stream every game of the National Rugby League season over the internet and subscribers would be able to watch every game live, on the device of their choosing. Maybe, those who didn’t need or want to watch every game live, could pay a few dollars less per year and be able to download every NRL game as soon as it was completed, with a couple of ads thrown in.

Here’s one more idea: A media distribution company could be set up specifically for the purpose of offering film downloads and distribution over the internet. When a film is released at the cinema, it could also be offered as a stream over the internet at the same time, for a cheaper price than going to the cinema. In conjunction to this, a subscription model could be set up so consumers could pay a yearly fee and in return, they are able to download high quality movie files in different formats to be watched at the consumer’s convenience.

These types of models could apply to just about any media. I am well aware of the popularity of iTunes, but this type of distribution channel and subscription model would be a simpler and more effective option, in my opinion. Australia-based companies could sign distribution deals with the large movie studios and music companies, no matter where they were based, and also provide a useful vehicle for smaller studios, independent bands and documentary film-makers.

To those that would be concerned about piracy increasing because of these types of files being available, I say that piracy has been around for a long time. VCR’s, DVD and dard drive recorders have been in use (and still are) for longer than the internet has been around (in the case of VCRs) and it didn’t stop TV shows being popular and advertising revenue increasing year on year.

My ideas would not stop piracy; I am not naive enough to think that, but if people are given the option of a simple, easy and useful distribution channel, I would be surprised if they didn’t embrace it with open arms.

Image credit: Sasan Saidi, royalty free

50 COMMENTS

  1. One interesting model I saw was pay-to-make TV.

    If you like a program, you donate to it, and allow them funds to film it.

    Sure with this model we won’t get the epic million dollar per ep or four hundred million dollar movie, but its a valid model. It also means only good programs and films are made because if it’s crap, no one will pay for it.

    • Agreed. there are so many options when it comes to digital distribution, which should make it more appealing, but unfortunately falls on deaf ears.

    • Look at the model built by Leo Laporte’s TWiT network.

      Around 25-odd podcasts, delivered mostly weekly – (some daily) – completely and utterly free – (though people are welcome to donate) – to thousands of willing consumers. Some of the shows do upwards of 250,000 downloads a week.

      Most of the shows are also streamed live, and repeated at various times during the week, providing content almost 24/7.

      And it’s all free to the user.

      A recent New York Times article reported that annual revenue for this enterprise last year was in the vicinity of $10m USD. The revenue comes from donations from users – (a tiny proportion) – and a maximum of four advertisements per program.

      The Ford Motor Company is one of their biggest sponsors. Sponsors who are interested in very specific audiences that specific content can be delivered to a captive audience.

      I repeat…content for free, $10m in revenue.

      Proof the model can work.

      • Every time I hear and see these models in action, it makes me shake my head at the ineptitude of our large media companies….

      • It boils down to a very simple theory.

        Content must be paid for in the long term to maintain production.

        Two people can subsidise the cost, either the consumer directly (pay per view), or a third party (sponsorship/advertising).

        It’s by no means new.

        • I see your point, but in the examples I have given, both the consumer and third-party advertisers would be supporting the production of content by paying.

          At the moment, we do not pay for TV shows aired on free-to-air television, so these new models, used in conjunction with the existing distribution channels, would actually allow for potentially more revenue to be brought in.

      • If you read the article Michael is referring to – http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/27/technology/27podcast.html – it is clear that, for one, his revenue is actually about $5 million or so, and it is clearly NOT scalable (as he’s getting 3x the usual amount for advertising, for being a niche service), and already it’s implied that his reach is about 500,000 people. It’s clear that whatever business model he’s using is fine for the low-quality content he is producing, but you can’t scale that up to replace the film or music industries.

        • Fair point, but…

          At least the article shows that different distribution models can work, no matter what the content.

          All I am asking is that media companies, who are in the business of media distribution, look at new and different ways of distributing the media that they control, to the benefit of them (hopefully) and the consumer.

          • “All I am asking is that media companies, who are in the business of media distribution, look at new and different ways of distributing the media that they control”

            Well this is part of the problem – the media companies don’t really control any content, the content producers do. These are usually production companies, movie studios, etc. When the media companies want to broadcast something, they get the minimum amount of rights that they’d need. This might not necessarily include the digital rights, and over the past decade the value of digital rights has increased rapidly, so many media companies won’t get them if they don’t want them. This means often other people might pick up the online/digital rights. This is why the NRL videos you watch online are served by Telstra/BigPond and not, say, NineMSN (when Nine have the broadcast rights).

            Now the media companies could make sure they start buying up online rights – and many are – but with the high cost of the rights they need to make sure they have a platform that’s set up to make money from those rights, and make money in such a way that it does not cannibalise their core business.

            If the content producers were to reduce the amount they were asking for for online rights, and to make sure they didn’t sign as many exclusive deals (another problem – when only one company is permitted to deliver a show digitally, and chooses not to), then we’d see an increase in good, consumer-friendly online business models. The trouble is, of course, that this would draw people away from the conventional methods of consuming content, and in turn devalue the broadcast rights those same content producers were asking for – so they would be shooting themselves in the foot.

  2. Good piece, Shannon. The pricing/distribution model you’ve outlined here is reasonable/practical and I’m definitely one of the people that would fork out for it. I’d like to add a fourth element to your reasons for piracy spectrum though – Accessibility.

    I don’t mean accessibility in terms of “ease of use”, but more as content availability. I don’t pirate, instead I buy all my media from iTunes because of the speed and content quality, but there’s definitely gaps in the catalogue in the AU store for music, TV shows and movies – Angus Kidman wrote a good article on the music side of things last month. I think this is another area where piracy dominates, because EVERYTHING is perpetually available

    • Thanks for the kind words, Dave.

      I totally agree. Distribution ‘channels’ like Hulu in the U.S. and BBC iPlayer are two examples of streaming systems that should be available everywhere and they aren’t.

      There are so many options, if they would only open their eyes.

      Very frustrating for the masses. If I were a shareholder in our media companies, I would be calling for their sacking on the grounds that they have missed one of the biggest opportunities in the last 10 years.

      • It’s nothing to do with “our media companies”. It’s because the rights holders who sell rights to people like Hulu and the BBC do so territorially, because then they can carve up the world and sell individual pieces. It’s possible they have a “global licence” but it would be prohibitively expensive, and neither Hulu nor BBC would purchase such a license because it would break their business model.

        If you want something like Hulu or BBC in Australia you’d have to buy up the rights to the content. It would be insanely expensive.

        • But that is why they could charge the price for subscribing. Why not try it with content that they already own?

          Just give it a go!

          If it fails, then so be it, but Australia’s media companies leave a lot to be desired when it comes to innovation and forward thinking.

        • This “territorial” carve-up is what has ruined the ebook market for the last couple of years. You used to be able to buy any book online (and still can buy any hard-copy book online), but then suddenly you could only buy ebooks “available for Australians”.

          The result has been a big loss for publishers and retailers. Why ruin an existing and successful market? It’s hard to see what these people are thinking.

          Territorial “rights” and DRM drive honest customers to the darknet. Accessible content attracts them away from it.

          Media companies nowadays seem to be all about control. They still have the illusion that they can control what we are allowed to read or do online. That illusion is costing all of us.

          I agree with this article. You only have to look at the success of ABC iView, to see how well video on demand would work in Australia. We just need more content offered. I think plenty of people would be willing to pay for it, in the iTunes model, if it were accessible and reasonably priced. I certainly would, and I’m on a below-average income.

  3. The reason why this won’t work Shannon is because:

    a) Its too bloody simple
    b) it makes complete logical sense

    • It staggers me that these executives cannot see the bigger picture and realise that this will be another option for them to make some money and provide a useful service.

      No-one is asking them to provide it for free and it would be a complement to existing services, not a detriment.

      • BEGIN
        – New movie is produced
        – Movie released to cinemas – ingest financial returns.
        – Movie released to DVD at say, $30 a pop – sells 10,000 copies in Australia?
        – Sue the downloaders and look like douchebags, egging more people to download.
        END

        or

        BEGIN
        – New movie is produced
        – Movie released to cinemas – ingest financial returns.
        – Movie released to DVD at say, $5 a pop – sells 100,000 copies in Australia?
        – Downloaders don’t bother because it’s cheaper to buy it than excess fees when they exceed download quota.
        END

        • Exactly my point. By offering cheaper media, people will actually buy their products, instead of pirating. Whatever the format is, by offering it at a reasonable price, consumers will be more inclined to purchase. CD and DVD media is a perfect example of Australians getting screwed.

          • If you factor this info into a simple demand/supply curve, CLEARLY the demand exists to offer supply at a [much, much, much] lower cost!

        • Looks great on paper, but what happens when it turns out only 20,000 people buy the $5 one instead of 100,000? You can make up any numbers to make a better looking business model.

        • I might also point out that there are probably about a half a dozen outlets for purchasing new release movies (on a rental, not an ‘own’ model) for about $5/$6 already.

        • “Downloaders don’t bother because it’s cheaper to buy it than excess fees when they exceed download quota.”

          eh ? You support excess fees ?… Was not expecting that.

        • Let’s try it again …
          BEGIN
          – New movie is produced
          – Movie released to cinemas – ingest financial returns.
          – Movie released to DVD at say, $30 a pop – sells 10,000 copies in Australia?
          [more like 250,000 for a big release]
          END

          BEGIN
          – New movie is produced
          – Movie released to cinemas – ingest financial returns.
          – Movie released to DVD at say, $5 a pop – sells 100,000 copies in Australia?
          [hopefully not cause you’d be losing money on every single disc. You’d prob need to sell 3 million (?) to get the scale to make it work. That’s more than tend to watch FTA movies for free so I’d say your business model is in serious trouble!]
          – Downloaders don’t bother because it’s cheaper to buy it than excess fees when they exceed download quota.
          END

  4. Excellent article Shannon. I hope this message has an impact and gets through to the right people.

    I’m one of the people that torrents all my TV shows, but only out of necessity. I would gladly pay to access content in high definition (my biggest gripe with our pathetic SD FTA TV) if it were available at a reasonable cost and released at the same time worldwide.

    One innovative project that I’m sure you’re aware of and that I’m an “investor” in is The Tunnel. When I say investor, I put in a whopping $1 which buys me a single frame of the film :)

    For those not aware The Tunnel is being funded entirely by people investing in frames of the film. As it says on the website: 1 frame = $1. 135,000 frames = 90 minutes = 1 movie.. The film is then going to be distributed via bit-torrent.

    Of course this kind of production and distribution model isn’t practical for all studios and media companies, but it’s a good example of a courageous project that is thinking outside the square, and embracing modern methods of distribution, rather than fighting them.

  5. My wife and I view all of our TV shows via Channel BT. We can choose when, how, and what to watch all displayed via our media centre. I refuse to watch Aussie commercial TV programming which suffers ads, programming changes, chopped episodes, artificial season breaks, six month delays compared to US TV dates, ads, ads, ads, and oh did I say more ads?! In many cases some TV shows will never be shown in this country and can only be viewed by downloading via torrent.

    I also find it obscene that 7, 9, & 10 screen big release 2 hour films padded out to 3.5 hours with a multitude of ads. I refuse to watch such nonsense and to be honest have no intention of ever watching a commercial TV network ever again. We’ve been commercial TV free in our household for over 3 years now and our TV viewing is better than ever.

    We still buy TV series on Bluray for those shows we really like and want to view again at a later date.

  6. 1. “What if the Seven Network, for example, launched a new service where for $5 a month, subscribers could download their favourite TV shows”

    Ok, just to stimulate discussion, how would the then be different from the (free) PLUS7 service that Seven already has? Would it have more shows – because if you want to expand the content to include (I’m sure) dozens of show that you personally enjoy (let me guess, Entourage, Dexter, Mad Men and True Blood?) you should know that those digital rights are not only very expensive but often they’re simply not available, as another content partner has purchased them exclusively.

    2. “What if Channel 9, in partnership with Fox Sports, came up with a combined offering where for a yearly fee (say, $50), they would stream every game of the National Rugby League.”

    The digital rights to NRL are extremely expensive and currently owned by Telstra. You can already view past games (the last six seasons) on Telstra’s nrl.com site. Currently the NRL simply won’t sell digital rights to screen the games live – I’m sure there are a lot of digital companies that would love to get their hands on them. But they would be outstandingly expensive (think, tens of millions) as they would also devalue the broadcast rights, and would have to compensate. How many people do you really think are going to shell out that $50 yearly fee? Enough to pay for the (at a guess) $20 million licensing fee? Not to mention the necessary infrastructure to provide a competitive broadcast to TV.

    3. “A media distribution company could be set up specifically for the purpose of offering film downloads and distribution over the internet. When a film is released at the cinema, it could also be offered as a stream over the internet at the same time, for a cheaper price than going to the cinema.”

    This would also devalue the current cinema business model. You’d be asking the movie studios to intentionally approve something that would deprive them of income. Probably a better plan is to stick with the existing systems but making sure a film is released globally in Cinemas internationally, and then as soon as the global run starts to slow down, release it globally on DVD, subscription TV, download services and rental services (some of which might be subscription).

    4. “In conjunction to this, a subscription model could be set up so consumers could pay a yearly fee and in return, they are able to download high quality movie files in different formats to be watched at the consumer’s convenience.”

    Well apart from the “watched at the customer’s convenience” bit (by which I assume you’re implying DRM-free, which I shouldn’t have to highlight why the studios would think that’s a bad idea) you’re pretty much describing NetFlix. This year will be an interesting year for NetFlix, because the movie library they’ve been using has been bought from Starz for an extremely low price (about $US 25 million I think, off the top of my head) – this is valued at about ten times that amount and needs to be renegotiated this year, so let’s see how viable NetFlix is later this year.

    The essential problem with most of your propositions is that the core content rights holders, the people who actually decide how much something is worth before they hand it over to distributors, aren’t going to give up their coffers of gold that easily.

    • quote:

      The essential problem with most of your propositions is that the core content rights holders, the people who actually decide how much something is worth before they hand it over to distributors, aren’t going to give up their coffers of gold that easily.

      Thanks for the input, Tom. Your quote above is exactly the reason why I wrote this piece. Piracy of these TV shows, movies, music, etc is already happening, and these models would give users a chance to pay a reasonable price for this media.

      PLUS7 is OK, but I am talking about having the option of taking the media with you on different devices which may not have internet access.

      The NRL example you gave is all well and good, but I am talking about current games live on TV that I could watch streaming on my TV or download and watch later, without the need for an internet connection, if necessary. I would gladly pay $50 a year if it allowed me to either watch games live, via streaming, or download them. I would rather that than the add-filled dribble we get from Channel 9, and it would be far less expensive than the pay TV option.

      As for infrastructure, both Channel 9 and Fox Sports have the necessary gear to broadcast effectively, but they just choose not to do it.

      When it comes to Netflix, I want to be able to download movies like people do now, via torrenting, but I would be happy to pay for the privilege. This distribution model is already working (ie: piracy is on the up), so why not try and take advantage of it, instead of repressing it?

      Also, wouldn’t it be nice to get the TV shows (including the ones you have mentioned) right away, instead of having to wait years (in some cases) and if not years, put up with that rubbish they call ‘Fast Tracking’.

  7. OK

    I used to work for a newspaper and now I work for a motion picture company. Both you will probably have heard of. I really only need to work for a record company and I’ve reached the holy trinity of industries currently *ahem* “challenged” by the internet.

    I welcome this kind of debate, but think I can correct a couple of misconceptions:

    1. That content makers are utterly pre-occupied with piracy.
    I cannot stress how categorically wrong this is. There are industry bodies which have been set up and funded specifically to tackle piracy, and they go on their way with campaigns. But in my day to day we rarely – if ever – discuss it. Compared to the amount of time we spend talking about driving consumers to digital distribution channels (of which there are a lot), it’s very negligible.

    2. That content companies do not spend time thinking about online business models:
    Truthfully, I do little else with my day. The reason none of the above models have been implemented is very genuinely because we’d all make less money that way. Subscriptions, collapsing release windows, multiplying distribution channels would all be *really* appealing for consumers, no doubt, but would seriously cut into revenues and we’d lose a lot of money

    You’re welcome,
    Bob Loblaw’s Law Blog

    • I would have thought that giving consumers more opportunities to purchase their wares and be subjected to advertising would have been a good idea…..

      I guess that is the whole point, that media companies, by and large, do not give to much thought to the consumers that prop them up, but are quite happy to sue the very people that provide their wealth in the first place.

      I find it hard to believe that companies would make less money than what they do now by implementing another way for users to PAY for their content. My free-to-air TV example, ie: why not offer a way for consumers to pay for something that they want to pay for (downloads of TV shows), when at the moment, we can watch it for free? Seems to me that this would be an additional revenue stream, not something that removes revenue from the system.

      The content is already there, there just needs to be some more thought into how it gets distributed to everyone makes money.

      How do these media companies know that this won’t work? Perhaps if they tried and it didn’t work, then that would be fair enough, but what if it did?

      I would be happy to help them out :)

      • I think @Tom has put this as well as I could

        You said: “I would have thought that giving consumers more opportunities to purchase their wares and be subjected to advertising would have been a good idea…..”

        Not if it erodes value it isn’t. I agree with you that creating new distribution channels will encourage some torrenters/piraters to pay for content, however this will be more than compensated for by the bleeding of revenues from the traditional sources.

        The best example above is the NRL/Foxtel one. if you implemented this you’d see a little trickle of money from illegal streamers now paying a $50 sub; and you’d see a massive black hole from all those people cancelling their Foxtel subs ($1,500p.a.?) and taking up the $50 online-only option. Net loss. Big, huge net loss. Hence why it hasn’t happened.

        • I doubt that people who have Foxtel subscriptions would cancel just to do this, because they are already getting the content, BUT people who do not have access to pay TV because it is too expensive, would maybe get on-board with the streaming option. So that is more likely a net gain of revenue.

          I guess we have our own opinions as to why this might or might not work, but I would love to see a trial of this sort of thing. If it doesn’t work, then so be it, but at least investigate it.

          • Why would sports fans keep Foxtel if they can get the content cheaper?

            I think you are dramatically underestimating the number of people who get Foxtel purely for Sport. It’s a lot. Like, most of them. Seriously. And the codes (NRL, AFL, etc) know this and charge a LOT for the rights. In 2007 the broadcast rights alone just for AFL were sold for $780 million. How’s your business model to replace that with an online service?

          • I take your point, but I’ll counter it with those that don’t have pay TV at all and would be willing to try this system instead.

            The idea is not to replace existing delivery. but to enhance it for more people.

            The great thing is that there seems to be people on both sides who care enough and have contributed to the discussion, which Is the whole point… :)

          • I agree with Shannon. I have from the beginning refused to subscribe to PayTV, because the whole thing could be done much better and much more flexibly via the Net.

            I would pay a subscription for ABC iView, which I currently get for free. I would pay a subscription for ad-free sports access online, and “channels” like Discovery and Nickelodeon. I’d definitely pay for NetFlix or Hulu.

            Currently, your industry is getting little or no money from my family. We don’t go to the cinema, we don’t watch TV, we watch iView for free, and we occasionally rent/buy movies/shows from iTunes or buy discount DVDs. I won’t watch sport on TV because of the stupid ads.

            Time to expand your market. ;)

          • We will need to agree to disagree

            But if you were to offer the opportunity to stream NRL games (remembering that the sports rights are the absolute jewel in Foxtel’s crown, and is what drives the bulk of their subscriptions) for 5% of the p.a. cost of current Foxtel subscriptions, I think it’s fair to say you’d see a net loss.

            [In fact I think you’d ruin Foxtel overnight, and also the NRL and AFL, and be chased out of Australia by an angry sport-loving mob with pitchforks]

          • It might also be worth noting that statistically, your average sports fan with a pitchfork is fitter and can run faster than your average web developer. Worth building that little nugget into your business case.

          • I am not doubting the importance of sport to pay TV companies, but I guess we both are only surmising as to what might happen, because unless someone tries it, we’ll never know.

    • “The reason none of the above models have been implemented is very genuinely because we’d all make less money that way”

      Even if this is the case, why is that the consumer’s problem? The existing business model for these music and film companies is dying rapidly. Their role in the digital world is far more narrow and in some ways of questionable importance at all.

      The increasing prevalence of piracy is evidence that existing distribution and pricing models are wrong and continued attempts to enforce them will end in failure. In particular, as Australians, we don’t get Netflix, or Hulu, or Spotify… so instead of making at least some money from me, film and music companies receive nothing. Not a cent.

  8. “He was around before the internet began and was there when NCSA Mosaic was king of browsers.”

    ….and the same goes.

    I was even around in the days of FidoNet and public BBS’s. I even designed and ran a BBS.

  9. How many Whedon shows do we have to lose before people figure out the internet (downloads) and TV (rather expensive for the good stuff) don’t mix very well ? (Without unbreakable DRM)

    And it has been noticed the author sidesteps DRM in article and in comments. Which is odd… unless you notice it’s the safe choice.

    • The reason I didn’t mention it is that it’s not worth mentioning, for three reasons:

      One: Find me a system that works, across all circumstances, and then we’ll talk.

      Second: As soon as there is a new DRM system, it will be broken. Why have it if it is going to alienate your customers and defeat the purpose of digital delivery in the first place.

      Third (and most important): The article was designed to provoke discussion about delivery of media, not how to secure it.

      • You can’t have the discussion on how to deliver it without the DRM part. Just like you can not have the discussion without mentioning piracy. And your compare of todays torrent piracy to VCR piracy is a joke.

        ‘One: Find me a system that works, across all circumstances, and then we’ll talk.’

        Oh ok. So your hypothetical is justified but don’t mention the war (DRM). check.

        ‘Second: As soon as there is a new DRM system, it will be broken. Why have it if it is going to alienate your customers and defeat the purpose of digital delivery in the first place.’

        You seem to take the position that digital delivery is a right. You’re being denied something you should have. DRM gets cracked ? So what… that is not a reason not to discuss it… Not discussing it makes your article just another cheap ‘me too’ in a huge sea of these articles. Is DRM a high level topic, yes and one that can not be removed from the content delivery topic.

        ‘Third (and most important): The article was designed to provoke discussion about delivery of media, not how to secure it.’

        You can not separate the two. Your mention of piracy is proof of it. It would be like a discussion of the NBN without a nod to pricing.

        Your article is can be broken down to ‘ Make it cheap and easy and lots of people will use it and they will make money on volume’.

        “Here’s one idea on how this can be achieved: What if the Seven Network, for example, launched a new service where for $5 a month, subscribers could download their favourite TV shows in acceptable formats to watch in their own time, with an advertisement or two built in. Up the price to $10 and you could offer these same programs, advertisement-free and in full High Definition”

        This idea turns the Seven Network into a distributor… How can it get a price point of $5 with it having to deal with so so many different content makers ? You got any idea how many current contracts for content would have to be re-written ? You’re talking about a system that would have to be phased in…

        Shit even netflix only allows streaming @ $7.99 usd and you want ad supported downloads for $5 ?

        and then… you dont want to talk about DRM.

        You’re dreaming, Mr Me Too.

        • What do you want me to say about DRM that has got you all fired up? That I think it should be there? I don’t necessarily think that DRM is effective and I think it’s usefulness can be debated, but that’s not for me to decide in the end. Whether DRM is there or not, piracy is gong to happen regardless. The fact that any DRM system you use can be cracked just adds to the time that it takes to become available for piracy. That’s reality.

          The VCR analogy was just a concept argument that piracy has been around for a long time. It wasn’t meant to be a cutting-edge example of piracy through the years.

          Whether DRM is involved or not, it doesn’t change the fact that there are better media delivery systems available. That is the premise of the article as well as some ideas on how it MAY be priced.

          Channel 7 (to use your example) is a distributor now, it’s just in a different format. They distribute TV shows to your TV, which you can choose to watch, or not. They don’t DRM TV shows. Channel 7 is also a media production company. I don’t see how that’s relevant to the argument on the delivery medium.

          My position (digital delivery is a right) is no such thing. I am not being ‘denied’ anything. All I am saying is that maybe there are better ways to distribute content to a wider section of consumers, at different price points. We know that the torrenting of media (whether illegal or legal) is an effective way of delivering media to the masses. My article is simply asking why this is not used by mainstream media companies. They already offer streaming shows on their websites, why not expand that delivery?

          One more thing: Apple doesn’t use DRM for it’s music (provided by distributors) and they seem to be doing OK. A perfect example on how a digital delivery system works pretty well, wouldn’t you say?

          • The reason why content providers want their content protected from DRM is not to ensure it never makes it on to pirated networks. It’s not even to prevent duplication by those tech-savvy enough to be able to circumvent the DRM when cracks become available. Primarily, it’s to prevent casual copying between the less tech-savvy. The fact is proportion of the community capable of figuring out how to bit-torrent or using file lockers is actually quite low (although growing). If the content providers were to drop DRM entirely, the number of people who would be capable of casually copying content would increase dramatically.

            Let’s use a DVD analogy. If you sell a DVD, you want to make sure there’s just one copy of the DVD in the box. If someone invents a magic DVD box, where when you open the DVD and take out a disc, a perfect copy of that disc appears in the box, then the people who sell DVDs aren’t going to want that magic box. Except maybe at their manufacturing plant. But if you only have one copy of a DVD you can still copy it – it’s just not as easy as a magical one appearing all the time.

            It’s all about keeping the value of your product. You can translate this to large corporations trying to keep an ever-precarious grasp on their fading mega-profits, or you can translate it into an industry desperately trying to maintain their standards of quality and production. Both would be true.

          • So, why has iTunes Plus (music without DRM) not resulted in this content armageddon?

            As another example, many ebooks are available without DRM (e.g. Baen Books, the Multiformat ebooks on Fictionwise), and those publishers don’t think it’s doing them any harm. If anything, they say it increases their sales by making it easier to share titles and say, “Look, this author is awesome! You have to get all their books!”

            Think about how you encountered your favourite musicians and authors. Was it on free radio and in free libraries, or by people freely lending books and music to you?

            I have fond memories of our uni tape library in the late 70s: you could copy any music there onto your own tapes. None of us could afford to buy music in those days. But we developed a love of music, and since those days have bought heaps of it.

            Your industry is holding on too tight. Give a little, learn a lot.

Comments are closed.