The Content Industry Will Never Get It

Subject: Editorial, General Tech, Systems | November 10, 2012 - 04:47 PM |
Tagged: piracy, kinect

We do not like straying from our usual topics into the music, movie, and console gaming industries although I will make an exception for this. It has a computer hardware angle, I assure you.

So I came across an article this morning regarding a patent which Microsoft filed about a year and a half ago. This patent describes a process where a device can monitor the number of people viewing a copyrighted work and permit “remedial action” should that number increase beyond some arbitrary level. In other words, the technology would prevent or adjust the price of consuming content based on the number of people in your private residence.

Hey if you want to bring your significant other over -- that’ll cost you!

View Full Size

Hey did I tell you about this awesome DRM we're working on? Huge success.

It routinely frustrates me when people side with the content industry because they know that one-or-so unapologetic pirating acquaintance who they feel is ripping off the whole system. The problem is that all evidence which I have seen to suggest whether or not a pirate has actual damages actually shows sales increases or is wholly based on junior high school-level statistical errors.

The content industry does not demand for you to pay them for their content: they demand that you pay them for their content under specific conditions. There were no less than two services present at CES 2011 which allowed users to input a movie title to find out where it is legally available. If it was in Vudu, Hulu+, Netflix, in Theatres, which theatre, what show-times, as a DVD or BluRay on Amazon, on TV soon, and so forth.

Everyone I discussed those services with, thus far, were amazed with how useful that would be.

I then ask them: Why is it so hard to give them money that we need services to instruct people how to legally license content?

What if the person watching the content at a friend’s house ends up purchasing it? They are attempting to open up extra streams of revenue by controlling the system more aggressively. When the system gets too convoluted for users to abide by they blame that loss in revenue on piracy.

You could imagine this occurring for video games as well: what if a publisher decides that split-screen gaming is a premium service to be licensed on a per-controller basis? The content industry is attempting to focus their licensing arrangements as granularly as possible. This is bad for you, it is often bad for them, and it is terrible for society.

Do not assume that a copyright holder will act sensibly. It is not about cheap people. It is often not even about revenue despite whether they believe it is or not. Just look at Ubisoft’s DRM “success”. An exodus of 90% of your customers should never be called a success and yet they genuinely believed it was.

Source: Mashable
November 11, 2012 | 12:42 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

+1 like.

November 12, 2012 | 08:56 AM - Posted by TheBradyReport

Scott, couldn't agree with you more. It amazes me that the video content industry can't just look to their left at the music industry and say - "Oh hey!, making content affordable and easy to purchase DOES work!"

Being able to pay $.99 for a song or use Spotify, Mog, Pandora etc have all but erased music piracy. They made the gap between legally purchasing the content vs pirating it so small that it is a no brainier.

What worries me even more is the Supreme Court case that is currently being heard.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/10/a-supreme-court-clash-could-c...

This REALLY could change the game depending on how it goes down and how much lawyers can bastardize the resulting judgement to their own needs.

The issue of ease of acquisition for video content is the number one issue for me. I have accounts now with Hulu, Netflix, Amazon Prime, Vudu, iTunes, Google Play and more and that still won't cover me. I'll willing fork over $2/episode to iTunes if it makes things easy. I downloaded my new episode of The Walking Dead this morning from the iTunes store automatically. Unfortunately I have to wait probably another 6-9 months to buy the last season of Game of Thrones because HBO can't remove their head from their... you get the idea...

November 12, 2012 | 10:12 AM - Posted by Scott Michaud

The problem is that the video industry does look at the history of the music industry and learned... to never let anyone like Apple get too big and limit their ability to increase prices or pressure their customers. And price might not even be a concern either -- as platforms like Steam have shown: the biggest barrier to your customers is service, not price.

As for that Supreme Court case...

The way around the first sale doctrine is due to the content being produced overseas. That is another way of telling content companies: "Hey! Don't produce your stuff in the USA and you'll get extra copyright protections!" That would be exactly how those companies will see that loophole in the First Sale Doctrine.

Welllll that has some undesirable consequences...

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <blockquote><p><br>
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.