"And, of course, if security researchers are talking about it now, you can be pretty sure that hackers already figured this out a while ago."
Security researchers and hackers are the same people. :P
Repealing the DMCA would be a huge step forward but that wouldn't solve the issue entirely. Change will only come about when people learn to look past the propaganda, to stop fearing the pirates, to see that the tools of the digital age can be used positively, and that their rights are being trampled on by greedy media companies. That way, ridiculous bills like the DMCA wouldn't fly.
The only other alternative would be the death of the current media companies from refusal to change their business models, but somehow I doubt that will happen; there has already been a handful of traditional companies utilizing new media market strategies and others are likely to catch on, but more importantly: they like money too much.
I meant as a rule (business model) instead of the exception (piracy).
I'm not sure what you're getting at though. This example was used in relation to moviemaking in general, was it not? "Creative Marketing, Freeing Up Movies, Embracing New Business Models"... that doesn't sound very specific to me. Besides which, if we aren't meant to discuss how these practices might be applied elsewhere then what's the point of bringing them? To say "oh, neat"?
Except you're missing something extremely important here: The filmmaking industry is already a "maybe pay" industry.
The entire business relies on whether people want to see the movie or not.
But in that sense, every industry is a "maybe pay" industry. The entire computer software business relies on whether people want to use the program or not. The entire soft drink business relies on whether people want to consume soda or not.
The point I am making is that this model takes previously-monetized groups of people and removes them from the picture entirely, namely: casual moviegoers and people didn't like the movie.
The current model works roughly in this fashion:
This model, however, would work something like this:
Again, I can maybe see this working with the reduced cost of production/distribution using an all-digital workflow (something the industry has been slow to embrace), but two other things also have to happen:
Filmmaking is already a big enough gamble as it is. Introducing "maybe paying" as the rule rather than the exception is nice in theory but for every 1 person that wants to support the artists there will be 100 more who don't care about who made the movie and just want to be entertained for an hour and a half. With the "old model" these people's viewings would be monetized then and there and it wouldn't matter if they bought the DVD or not, but to make a comparable profit with the "new model" they would need to not only like it, but like it so much that they'd go and buy it multiple times.
Although I suppose taking out the enormous cost of theatric distribution might help recoup some of those untranslated sales, I just don't see this working all THAT well in a culture where entitlement is increasingly becoming the norm.
I think it's an emerging trend that only the cleverer programs/stations are doing.
E.g., HGTV just posted this on Facebook:
Antonio fans: this just in! Antonio is joining us LIVE Sunday night on Facebook to chat during his special, "The Antonio Project". Be here at 10/9c to ask him questions during the show or just say hi.
Wht happens when all goods become infinite, a la the Jetsons?