SanDisk's Big Announcement? How They've Made Flash Less Useful

from the just-great dept

At some point, you would think that everyone would stop buying the industry line about how copy protection technology helps "motivate" content producers. Copy protection makes the content less usable and therefore less valuable to users. In other words, it means they're willing to pay a lot less for it. There's no resale market. They're limited in what they can do with it. It's a value decreasing proposition. Yet, the big content providers claim that it's necessary, and companies believe what they're fed. So, along comes SanDisk, who went around last week telling everyone they had a big announcement this week. What was it? That they've installed their own copy protection technology on flash cards for mobile devices. The journalist at Infoworld repeats the industry line that somehow this "will motivate providers of music, games, movies and other content to sell those products for mobile phones." It may motivate them to try, but it doesn't do much to motivate buyers to buy. It's time that someone called the bluff on this claim. If there are enough people looking for content on their mobile phones, the content providers will find the business models that make sense -- and those aren't made up business models invented by the copy protection, but business models that embrace giving people what they want. Meanwhile, having yet another version of copy protection out there isn't going to make anyone very excited. It's just going to make people less interested in the content.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2005 @ 7:43pm

    No Subject Given

    It may not make anyone really excited, but it's not a bluff. The average consumer doesn't care if what they buy is copy-protected or not, they'll waste their money on it anyways.

    A few won't like it because of the copy-protections, and even fewer may not buy it because of the copy-protection, but they won't be nearly enough to matter to the content providers.

    If people want the content they'll buy it no matter how many different protections it has.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    DGK12, Sep 27th, 2005 @ 7:52pm

    Re: No Subject Given

    Tell that to the thousands who subscribe to the internet to download free content because or these stupid schemes.

    I'm all for supporting the artist, but they are really pushing the customers to find new avenues. Look at how useless DVDs are even with a computer equipped with a DVD player. If you buy what the industry feeds you, you cannot download a movie even if you hold a copy in your hand. If they let you do that, then it would make sense again to buy legitimate copies to support the artists, because then you can put it to some use without fear of being a criminal. If they do that then what difference does it make if someone buys it or not.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    DGK12, Sep 27th, 2005 @ 7:54pm

    No Subject Given

    As a second thought, when they offer free download-able content, I don't even bother. Its crippled and will become useless if I move it or reinstall my computer. Of course Microsoft offers digital content management, but I don't want to feel like I'm going through Airline check-in when I'm trying to listen to some tunes.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Surveyguy, Sep 27th, 2005 @ 8:31pm

    Re: No Subject Given

    I guess content providers have forgotten about what happened to WordStar. You say what's that? Exactly. The first premiere word-processing program took off like wildfire. It could be copied. Then they introduced WordStar2000. It was copy-protected. When word got out sales which were almost vertical nose-dived and WordStar went out of business. Sure competition didn't help, but it was introducing copy-protection that made the product still-born. Even today, I refuse to buy copy-protected software or content. And for those that sneak it in (like Quicken did one year), I switched products, because copy-protection schemes screw things up for the user, plain and simple.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2005 @ 11:10pm

    Re: No Subject Given

    Wrpmg

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Chris, Sep 28th, 2005 @ 8:57am

    Scan disk copyright protection

    There is an article on MSN about how the Rolling Stones are releasing an album on this new format.. the cost $40!! Why would anyone buy it when they can get the CD for $15

    Article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9514139/

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This