DRM only sucks when compared to breaking the law. Not shocking, is it?
DRM is supposed to stop people from breaking the law. DRM is not effective.
so if the DRM technology doesn't do what you want it to do (which is prevent illegal downloads) AND it makes your legitimate customers angry (and possibly increases illegal downloads) then why bother with the DRM technology in the first place.
paying for media is optional. people pay you because they feel they should, not because they have to. crappy services that limit choice and features erode that feeling of obligation that your revenue model is based on. this is the essential point that media companies cannot grasp.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Use PayPal! (Eat At Joes!)
"moneyhookers.com" Do they sleep with money? If not that name is extremely redundant.
you're confusing money hookers with hooker monies. money hookers is a service for hookers to collect money. it converts regular money into hooker monies, which hookers can then use to buy goods and services.
an excellent service for converting hooker monies back in to regular currency is hookermonies.com the also have an app store.
nintendo has never been able to compete with sony or microsoft due to it's [comparatively] small size. it's always tried to compete by using experimental hardware (gimmicks) and its exclusive titles.
nintendo's marketing model has pretty much always been: cheap consoles (i.e. parent friendly), tons of hardware accessories, marketed mostly at kids, featuring a huge roster of characters that are confined to nintendo hardware.
now that you're no longer a kid, i'm sure you feel like you're entitled to tell nintendo what you think. but i think that nintendo truly believes that it's primary user base is aged 8-14, not exactly the kind of folks you solicit for business advice, and not the kind of people who have traditionally had a strong need for online gaming.
Moreover, you have to ask what the government's goal is.
the goal of all public officials is to get [re]elected. obama and his boys have raised millions in contributions already and the campaign hasn't really started yet.
I know that content is taxable (on all levels), and thus is a good source of government revenue - and a chunk of the economy.
hollywood has supposedly been losing "billions" for over a decade. if you want to collect tax revenue and boost the economy you should probably get in bed with growing companies with products people want to buy, like apple, amazon and google, rather than "shrinking" companies like book publishers, movie studios and record labels.
The short term illegal access to content is, well, not exactly taxable, is it?
it's not, but the hundreds millions of consumers who pay taxes probably generate way more tax revenue than hollywood does, given its propensity for creative accounting.
unless this is actually about campaign contributions, in which case, hollywood weilds way more power than the voting public.
the idea of IPv6 is in part that every device can and will be given a unique IP within a network. That is to say that DHCP will not longer be useful (and may in fact be discouraged), because your individual devices (by MAC address) will always have the same IP within a given network (assign once, never have to reuse).
again, that's a great theory, but the last 13 years disagree with you. the internet isn't flat. it's a network of interconnected networks, each with their own rules and configurations.
also MAC addresses aren't as immutable as you make them out to be. even if mac addresses and ip addresses couldn't be proxied or faked, they're still not fingerprints or DNA.
also, fixed IP addressing is a two-way street. if there is less churn in the assignment of IP's, that greatly improves the accuracy and maintenance of real time block lists like moblock and peer guardian. this is why encrypted tunnels aren't necessary, block list keep out prying eyes just fine.
As for "licensing deals", there really is no licensing with "free".
sure there is. a voluntary (not compulsory) blanket license would solve hollywood's problems without changing much of anything, other than the amount of money coming in. people pay for a license to do what they are doing right now, and hollywood leaves the people with valid licenses alone.
people who don't want to pay for a license don't have to. they can keep doing what they are doing now. companies like media sentry can continue to spy on people and send nastygrams to ISP's.
in fact, they might even be able to collect nielsen style ratings info, especially if more people can file share in the clear. this way, the drop in illegal piracy doesn't affect their bottom lines that much since they can collect and sell this 'market research data' to the people who buy that stuff.
corrupt royalties groups like ASCAP can collect money from the voluntary licences and keep not paying artists, just like they're doing right now. the only difference is that there will probably be more money for them to take.
the only thing that changes is that folks with licenses can register said license with their ISP and the ISP can disregard all cease and desist letters so long as the subscriber's license is paid up.
i for one would be glad to pay a couple hundred a year to be able to run torrents in the clear.
with the arrival of IPv6[...]Piracy is pretty much predicated on the anonymous nature of the net. Take that away, make it so people really have to share who they are as they share a file or as they download it, and you will see more people give it up.
that's an awfully big assumption.
1) i don't think IPv6 does what you think it does. ipv6 is an increase in the address space, nothing more. the networking world isn't going to suddenly move to all static IPs all the time and toss NAT and DHCP forever more. IPv6 is something like 13 years old, and we've supposedly run out of ipv4 addresses, yet IPV4, NAT, and DHCP still persist.
2) even if the world switched to government controlled IPV6 static IP's, a static IP isn't a fingerprint or DNA evidence. there is plenty of anonymity to be had via tunnels, be they VPN, SSH, TOR, etc. that stuff isn't integrated into P2P tool set and enabled by default because it isn't necessary yet. pirates don't run into a problem and quit. this is why napster begat gnutella, and gnutella begat bit torrent. if the need arises, bit torrent will beget always on encrypted tunneling and the next round of the P2P arms race will begin anew.
Most of the "new" business models are predicated on free distribution and building from there... when piracy of X is no longer a widespread issue, the actual market for X recovers to the point where it can be sold profitably again..
the player piano was illegal until the legal system caught up. same with the radio, the phonograph, the cassette recorder, the VCR, and on and on. every time the establishment railed against a new technology, and ultimately cut a licensing deal and moved on.
i'm not saying your theory is impossible --anything is possible and these are times of corporate welfare of epic proportions-- but history isn't on your side.