What the MPAA members don't realize is that actions like this will kill their revenue streams. The backlash from this type of plan would be that avid movie collectors like me would simply stop buying movies in protest. They already lose more money buying congressmen, and paying law firms than they would ever gain by eliminating a few content downloads.
That's exactly what happened when the RIAA put invasive copy protection on music. Their sales plummeted and piracy increased until they backtracked.
The MPAA thinks they will gain some huge windfall by eliminating content downloads. They're morons and they're completely wrong. They have spent far more money paying lawyers, buying congressmen, and researching ways to get around the law than they could ever possibly gain from the miniscule number of college kids downloading movies. The completely incorrect assumption is that those kids downloading movies would actually buy those movies if they couldn't download them. I guarantee they wouldn't. So, the MPAA members will only increase their expenses by pursuing this approach.
Further, if they continue this insanity many tech savvy movie collectors like me will stop buying movies in protest. I did exactly that when the recording industry was adding insane copy protection to music. Their sales plummeted during those years and they tried to blame piracy. I went from buying 2-3 CDs per week to buying zero for years. When they stopped the insanity, their sales went up again.
Message to all MPAA members: I buy a LOT of movies. I will completely stop buying movies if the MPAA pursues this insanity. Put a leash on your dogs or you will lose big money.
All of our elected officials are easily frightened and manipulated by the rantings of big media. Remember their declaration that piracy was much worse than terrorism? The idiots in Washington even fell for that retarded rhetoric. The DMCA is clear evidence of Washington's lack of technological understanding and their willingness to suck the ass of every big media lawyer and lobbyist.
Do you really believe the people sitting at the desks now are any smarter than the last bunch? I doubt it, but I'd love to be proven wrong. *shrug*
In reality, our officials haven't protected the rights of consumers for decades now. They are prostituting themselves to whoever has the most cash. Our only real hope for a better future is to put the RIAA and MPAA out of business by boycotting the products of their member companies. If these evil organizations have no money, the politicians will stop climbing into bed with them.
If I purchase the right to use a piece of media, I should damn well be able to use it on any device I own. Restricting that ability in any way will only encourage law-abiding folks to become pirates. These morons should stop attacking the people who actually PAY them to use their media and start going after the real criminals - those who are illegally making money copying their products. Maybe then, people wouldn't hate them so much.
We are long overdue for a consumer bill of rights. If I buy the rights to use a game, video, or song, I should be able to use it on any device I own. Preventing me from using it with DRM should be against the law.
DRM has never and will never prevent piracy. DRM has never been about piracy. It is purely a case of greedy big media trying to force consumers to pay more than once for the right to use the same piece of media. DRM is both logically and morally wrong. It's about time the FTC did something to protect consumers from the practice.
The biggest offender is the government. I don't worry about Google nearly as much as I worry about this country turning into a police state. Too much power corrupts and they've had too much power for years now.
MLS fervently wants to save the dying business model of selling a zillion identical digital copies of something that was created once and costs essentially nothing to duplicate. This means a file that sits on a server and can be downloaded as many times as people choose to download it. Saving that business model isn't realistic.
The reality is, the consumer decides what business model will be successful, not the owner of the content. Period. They vote with their money. Consumers are now smart enough to know that it costs microscopic fractions of a cent (for bandwidth) to sell another copy of a file sitting on a server. Paying even 99 cents for the right to download it is starting to become ridiculous, particularly when restrictions are placed on whether you can use it on all of the devices you own.
Here is the bottom line: If you stick with a model the consumer doesn't support, you will fail. You can hate that reality all you want, but it is still a reality. Mike has been trying to point this fact out.
In this modern digital age, consumers are moving toward supporting artists who use those unlimited digital downloads as promotional materials. They support those artists by attending their concerts, buying their merchandise, clicking on ads on their web sites, and many other means.
You can wish for the old days of ripping people off with $16 CD's that cost 35 cents to produce, but wishing won't turn back the clock. The artists who embrace the 21st century are the ones who will succeed in the future. If you can't live with the realities of this modern digital age, you will fade into non-existence with the rest of the CD-pressing dinosaur record labels. *shrug* It's up to you.
Seriously? In this century? I don't think modern people use any of those things to find out about new music anymore. Those are so last century. The net is where it's at these days. I would guess that social networking does more to introduce new music to customers than TV, billboards, and magazines, combined. MySpace, Facebook, Twitter, IM, and especially music sites like iTunes have all had a huge impact. Opinions and news about new bands, new tours, or new releases now spread at the speed of light. Ten seconds after a track is released on iTunes thousands of people from all corners of the globe can already be listening to it. Ninety seconds later, you will see tons of real listeners already voicing their opinions on how good (or bad) it is all over the net. Why would anyone in this century wait to see an ad on a billboard for new music? *shrug* Welcome to the 21st century.
Vote with your money. Stop buying DRM encoded tracks. The idiot companies still using DRM will go out of business and the world will be a better place without them.
Personally, I have totally boycotted all of the RIAA member companies for the past 8 years. Until they embrace the digital era and stop treating all customers like criminals in order to catch a few percent who wouldn't have bought anything from them anyway, I just won't give them my money. I either listen to the 700+ CDs I bought before they started treating me like a criminal for putting my own CDs on my own computer, or I listen to XM and Internet radio.
What would it take to get me to start buying 2 releases a week like I did for so many years? First, the RIAA would have to abandon DRM wholeheartedly. Second, they would have to stop lobbying to pass laws making it illegal for me to use my own CDs on whatever equipment I own. Otherwise, they can collectively pucker up and french kiss my rosey crack.
To be honest, I would love to see all of the RIAA member companies go out of business and all of their artists get signed by modern digital era companies who use the full benefits of modern technology in order to treat the artists fairly and treat their cusomers fairly. Imagine, maybe someday artists big and small will sign with "Google Music Group" who pays them twice the money and utilizes instant viral distribution to customers for a fraction of the cost. When will some sharp entrepeneur create a full-on high-tech digital record label that does this? They stand to make a fortune.
I can tell you what would get ME going to movies again and paying extra...
In Japan, they have tons of high-end Karaoke bars/parlors. These have a bunch of comfortable private rooms of varying sizes complete with comfortable seating, a great sound system, and a waitress to bring food and drinks. You take a group of your friends there and everyone drinks, eats great food, and has a blast making fun of one another singing. It's pretty popular there.
I always thought theatres should look into this concept with modifications appropriate to movie display as a high end alternative to traditional theatres. My idea is, let a group of friends (or a couple) rent a private theatre room with comfy furniture, amazing screen, and brilliant audio system. Let them select any available feature film from a menu to be displayed on the wall-sized screen in their room. Have a waitress serve them dinner and drinks with a button on the wall to call her at any time. Let the customers start the movie whenever they want and stay as long as they want, depending on the type of reservations they made.
The advantages are, folks still get to go out to dinner and a movie and get away from the kids. They can completely control WHO is with them in their private theatre room. If they want to be loud and chatty during the movie, they can do it without disturbing others. They can also have total silence to completely enjoy the movie. They can have a romantic night out with the wife or they can have a fun night of drinks and food with good friends.
The key is that this type of experience becomes whatever they want it to be because they have full control over the attendees, the pace, the menu, and the schedule. Plus, splitting the cost of the room rental among a group of friends makes it less expensive than it sounds. How much you spend on drinks and food is up to you. Which movie you choose is also up to you. Digital movies make this customized experience a very real possibility now.
It's like a strange cross mutation between a bar, a small hotel operation, a movie theatre, and private booths at a nice restaurant. They could even let people have karaoke parties in the same rooms with words on the big screen and the sound system playing music. Or just have a private party there with your friends and music videos, sporting events, or concerts playing on the big screen. I know a lot of guys who would pay a lot to have a waitress serve them and their buddies beer and food while watching football on a wall-sized screen with theatre quality digital surround sound.
THAT would be the type of theatre which would get me going out to movies again and that would be worth more money to me. Otherwise, I will continue to prefer my big LCD flat panel and built-in digital surround sound at home. Because at home, I control the environment, the sound levels, the attendees, and the pace of the experience. I can grab a beer from the fridge or a bag of chips whenever I want and I only buy the movie once for less money than it costs my wife and I to go out to a movie at the theatre.
I always carry 2 or 3 feature-length films on my iPhone. I rip them from my own library of over 600 DVDs and change them out frequently so that there is always something new for me to watch.
My iPhone plays video extremely well, has a great wide screen, and fits in my pocket. The audio is great through headphones and no worse than a cheap motel TV through the speakers. It has a compact cable which allows me to play the movies back on a full-sized TV if needed. I throw the cable and my charger in my carry-on when I travel. I watch movies in waiting rooms, in airports, on planes, in hotel rooms, on my patio, and other places where I have long periods of time to kill.
As far as streaming TV goes, I will never pay for streaming network TV. I already pay Cox far too much to watch network TV and I certainly don't do it according to their schedule. I have a DVR box to watch only the shows I want, when I want to watch them. That is the only way I will ever watch TV. I would, on the other hand, buy a SlingBox for a one-time charge and stream my OWN choices of shows when I want them. Once there is an iPhone client, I may just do that.
Media sources need to get it into their collective heads that this is now a "have it your way" society. We want only what we want, precisely when we want it, and delivered exactly how we want it delivered. If they can provide those precise capabilities, and find a way to make money at it in the process, they will be immensely successful. Google is a prime example. If they don't provide those capabilities, we don't settle for a half-baked attempt. We find another way to get it.
The greedy media companies killed brand loyalty and consumer respect for their corporate needs long ago. Their decade of aggressive customer-hating actions made it so most folks wouldn't care if every company in that whole industry died and dried up tomorrow. If they did, modern digital-age companies with far more sense would step in and take it all over in a heartbeat providing exactly what we want with less fuss and greater sucess.
If they really want this to work...
1. They need to keep the purchased/downloaded songs DRM-free like Amazon and many of the new offerings from iTunes.
2. They need to NOT charge for the "listen online" service and only charge for the DRM-free downloads.
3. They need to use a standard music format like MP3 that can be used on ANY music player with any media application. And they need to include album artwork.
4. The price, quite frankly, needs to beat Amazon and iTunes. I could see a DRM-free, high sample-rate MP3 track selling like hotcakes for $0.79. Seriously.
If they fail to do ANY of those four things, there will be NO compelling reason for anyone to ever download a single song. Zero. Nada. Particularly considering the vast majority of people are already entrenched in using iTunes or Amazon.
If they finally learn to put the needs of the consumer first, I may even drop my boycott of buying new music and start purchasing again. I own 700 CD's, all of which were purchased prior to the start of my boycott about 8 years ago. I stopped my habit of buying a couple CD's every week after reading about the RIAA legislative lobbying efforts and seeing their insane push for DRM. I informed and encouraged everyone I know to do the same.
Who knows? If they do this right, I might even take down the multitude of links I have accumulated on my personal web site asking people to boycott the RIAA (and MPAA) members and pointing to all the published articles about how self-centered, greedy, and power-crazed they are with their insane levels of legislative lobbying, buying congressmen, and treating paying customers like criminals. Their treatment of their loyal customers these past 10 years was just as illogical as if Walmart decided to arrest all of their customers nationwide because they suspected a few of them might have stolen something worth 50 cents.
They seriously could save a fortune by firing the teams of lawyers and lobbyists and just servicing their customers fairly. They might even win back all of their previously loyal customers like me who have felt betrayed and been bitterly angry at them for the past decade because they treated us like criminals after we spent so much money on their products.
So now, let's just sit back and see if the RIAA members' overwhelming greed and stupidity compells them to shoot themselves in the foot once again. What they really need is a HUGE turnover of upper management with young replacements who grasp the concept that the music world has radically changed and they better evolve faster or they will soon become extinct.
The MPAA folks should watch this process closely because without a doubt they are next. The writing is on the wall.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Bill Dempsey.
Re: Re:
What the MPAA members don't realize is that actions like this will kill their revenue streams. The backlash from this type of plan would be that avid movie collectors like me would simply stop buying movies in protest. They already lose more money buying congressmen, and paying law firms than they would ever gain by eliminating a few content downloads.
That's exactly what happened when the RIAA put invasive copy protection on music. Their sales plummeted and piracy increased until they backtracked.
Re: MPAA
The MPAA thinks they will gain some huge windfall by eliminating content downloads. They're morons and they're completely wrong. They have spent far more money paying lawyers, buying congressmen, and researching ways to get around the law than they could ever possibly gain from the miniscule number of college kids downloading movies. The completely incorrect assumption is that those kids downloading movies would actually buy those movies if they couldn't download them. I guarantee they wouldn't. So, the MPAA members will only increase their expenses by pursuing this approach.
Further, if they continue this insanity many tech savvy movie collectors like me will stop buying movies in protest. I did exactly that when the recording industry was adding insane copy protection to music. Their sales plummeted during those years and they tried to blame piracy. I went from buying 2-3 CDs per week to buying zero for years. When they stopped the insanity, their sales went up again.
Message to all MPAA members: I buy a LOT of movies. I will completely stop buying movies if the MPAA pursues this insanity. Put a leash on your dogs or you will lose big money.
Vote with your dollars people.
Psion are lame-ass idiots...
The morons probably say they are "xeroxing" documents on their Sharp copier to support the fact that "netbook" is their trademark...
You underestimate the stupidity of our government
All of our elected officials are easily frightened and manipulated by the rantings of big media. Remember their declaration that piracy was much worse than terrorism? The idiots in Washington even fell for that retarded rhetoric. The DMCA is clear evidence of Washington's lack of technological understanding and their willingness to suck the ass of every big media lawyer and lobbyist.
Do you really believe the people sitting at the desks now are any smarter than the last bunch? I doubt it, but I'd love to be proven wrong. *shrug*
In reality, our officials haven't protected the rights of consumers for decades now. They are prostituting themselves to whoever has the most cash. Our only real hope for a better future is to put the RIAA and MPAA out of business by boycotting the products of their member companies. If these evil organizations have no money, the politicians will stop climbing into bed with them.
If I purchase the right to use a piece of media, I should damn well be able to use it on any device I own. Restricting that ability in any way will only encourage law-abiding folks to become pirates. These morons should stop attacking the people who actually PAY them to use their media and start going after the real criminals - those who are illegally making money copying their products. Maybe then, people wouldn't hate them so much.
Consumer Bill of Rights
We are long overdue for a consumer bill of rights. If I buy the rights to use a game, video, or song, I should be able to use it on any device I own. Preventing me from using it with DRM should be against the law.
DRM has never and will never prevent piracy. DRM has never been about piracy. It is purely a case of greedy big media trying to force consumers to pay more than once for the right to use the same piece of media. DRM is both logically and morally wrong. It's about time the FTC did something to protect consumers from the practice.
Biggest offenders on privacy
The biggest offender is the government. I don't worry about Google nearly as much as I worry about this country turning into a police state. Too much power corrupts and they've had too much power for years now.
MLS lives in the past
MLS fervently wants to save the dying business model of selling a zillion identical digital copies of something that was created once and costs essentially nothing to duplicate. This means a file that sits on a server and can be downloaded as many times as people choose to download it. Saving that business model isn't realistic.
The reality is, the consumer decides what business model will be successful, not the owner of the content. Period. They vote with their money. Consumers are now smart enough to know that it costs microscopic fractions of a cent (for bandwidth) to sell another copy of a file sitting on a server. Paying even 99 cents for the right to download it is starting to become ridiculous, particularly when restrictions are placed on whether you can use it on all of the devices you own.
Here is the bottom line: If you stick with a model the consumer doesn't support, you will fail. You can hate that reality all you want, but it is still a reality. Mike has been trying to point this fact out.
In this modern digital age, consumers are moving toward supporting artists who use those unlimited digital downloads as promotional materials. They support those artists by attending their concerts, buying their merchandise, clicking on ads on their web sites, and many other means.
You can wish for the old days of ripping people off with $16 CD's that cost 35 cents to produce, but wishing won't turn back the clock. The artists who embrace the 21st century are the ones who will succeed in the future. If you can't live with the realities of this modern digital age, you will fade into non-existence with the rest of the CD-pressing dinosaur record labels. *shrug* It's up to you.
TV, Billboards, Magazines?? Huh?
Seriously? In this century? I don't think modern people use any of those things to find out about new music anymore. Those are so last century. The net is where it's at these days. I would guess that social networking does more to introduce new music to customers than TV, billboards, and magazines, combined. MySpace, Facebook, Twitter, IM, and especially music sites like iTunes have all had a huge impact. Opinions and news about new bands, new tours, or new releases now spread at the speed of light. Ten seconds after a track is released on iTunes thousands of people from all corners of the globe can already be listening to it. Ninety seconds later, you will see tons of real listeners already voicing their opinions on how good (or bad) it is all over the net. Why would anyone in this century wait to see an ad on a billboard for new music? *shrug* Welcome to the 21st century.
Stop buying DRM encoded tracks.
Vote with your money. Stop buying DRM encoded tracks. The idiot companies still using DRM will go out of business and the world will be a better place without them.
Personally, I have totally boycotted all of the RIAA member companies for the past 8 years. Until they embrace the digital era and stop treating all customers like criminals in order to catch a few percent who wouldn't have bought anything from them anyway, I just won't give them my money. I either listen to the 700+ CDs I bought before they started treating me like a criminal for putting my own CDs on my own computer, or I listen to XM and Internet radio.
What would it take to get me to start buying 2 releases a week like I did for so many years? First, the RIAA would have to abandon DRM wholeheartedly. Second, they would have to stop lobbying to pass laws making it illegal for me to use my own CDs on whatever equipment I own. Otherwise, they can collectively pucker up and french kiss my rosey crack.
To be honest, I would love to see all of the RIAA member companies go out of business and all of their artists get signed by modern digital era companies who use the full benefits of modern technology in order to treat the artists fairly and treat their cusomers fairly. Imagine, maybe someday artists big and small will sign with "Google Music Group" who pays them twice the money and utilizes instant viral distribution to customers for a fraction of the cost. When will some sharp entrepeneur create a full-on high-tech digital record label that does this? They stand to make a fortune.
Luxury theatres - almost but not quite
I can tell you what would get ME going to movies again and paying extra...
In Japan, they have tons of high-end Karaoke bars/parlors. These have a bunch of comfortable private rooms of varying sizes complete with comfortable seating, a great sound system, and a waitress to bring food and drinks. You take a group of your friends there and everyone drinks, eats great food, and has a blast making fun of one another singing. It's pretty popular there.
I always thought theatres should look into this concept with modifications appropriate to movie display as a high end alternative to traditional theatres. My idea is, let a group of friends (or a couple) rent a private theatre room with comfy furniture, amazing screen, and brilliant audio system. Let them select any available feature film from a menu to be displayed on the wall-sized screen in their room. Have a waitress serve them dinner and drinks with a button on the wall to call her at any time. Let the customers start the movie whenever they want and stay as long as they want, depending on the type of reservations they made.
The advantages are, folks still get to go out to dinner and a movie and get away from the kids. They can completely control WHO is with them in their private theatre room. If they want to be loud and chatty during the movie, they can do it without disturbing others. They can also have total silence to completely enjoy the movie. They can have a romantic night out with the wife or they can have a fun night of drinks and food with good friends.
The key is that this type of experience becomes whatever they want it to be because they have full control over the attendees, the pace, the menu, and the schedule. Plus, splitting the cost of the room rental among a group of friends makes it less expensive than it sounds. How much you spend on drinks and food is up to you. Which movie you choose is also up to you. Digital movies make this customized experience a very real possibility now.
It's like a strange cross mutation between a bar, a small hotel operation, a movie theatre, and private booths at a nice restaurant. They could even let people have karaoke parties in the same rooms with words on the big screen and the sound system playing music. Or just have a private party there with your friends and music videos, sporting events, or concerts playing on the big screen. I know a lot of guys who would pay a lot to have a waitress serve them and their buddies beer and food while watching football on a wall-sized screen with theatre quality digital surround sound.
THAT would be the type of theatre which would get me going out to movies again and that would be worth more money to me. Otherwise, I will continue to prefer my big LCD flat panel and built-in digital surround sound at home. Because at home, I control the environment, the sound levels, the attendees, and the pace of the experience. I can grab a beer from the fridge or a bag of chips whenever I want and I only buy the movie once for less money than it costs my wife and I to go out to a movie at the theatre.
-Bill
Who watches movies on phones? I do - but not theirs.
I always carry 2 or 3 feature-length films on my iPhone. I rip them from my own library of over 600 DVDs and change them out frequently so that there is always something new for me to watch.
My iPhone plays video extremely well, has a great wide screen, and fits in my pocket. The audio is great through headphones and no worse than a cheap motel TV through the speakers. It has a compact cable which allows me to play the movies back on a full-sized TV if needed. I throw the cable and my charger in my carry-on when I travel. I watch movies in waiting rooms, in airports, on planes, in hotel rooms, on my patio, and other places where I have long periods of time to kill.
As far as streaming TV goes, I will never pay for streaming network TV. I already pay Cox far too much to watch network TV and I certainly don't do it according to their schedule. I have a DVR box to watch only the shows I want, when I want to watch them. That is the only way I will ever watch TV. I would, on the other hand, buy a SlingBox for a one-time charge and stream my OWN choices of shows when I want them. Once there is an iPhone client, I may just do that.
Media sources need to get it into their collective heads that this is now a "have it your way" society. We want only what we want, precisely when we want it, and delivered exactly how we want it delivered. If they can provide those precise capabilities, and find a way to make money at it in the process, they will be immensely successful. Google is a prime example. If they don't provide those capabilities, we don't settle for a half-baked attempt. We find another way to get it.
The greedy media companies killed brand loyalty and consumer respect for their corporate needs long ago. Their decade of aggressive customer-hating actions made it so most folks wouldn't care if every company in that whole industry died and dried up tomorrow. If they did, modern digital-age companies with far more sense would step in and take it all over in a heartbeat providing exactly what we want with less fuss and greater sucess.
If they want this to work...
If they really want this to work...
1. They need to keep the purchased/downloaded songs DRM-free like Amazon and many of the new offerings from iTunes.
2. They need to NOT charge for the "listen online" service and only charge for the DRM-free downloads.
3. They need to use a standard music format like MP3 that can be used on ANY music player with any media application. And they need to include album artwork.
4. The price, quite frankly, needs to beat Amazon and iTunes. I could see a DRM-free, high sample-rate MP3 track selling like hotcakes for $0.79. Seriously.
If they fail to do ANY of those four things, there will be NO compelling reason for anyone to ever download a single song. Zero. Nada. Particularly considering the vast majority of people are already entrenched in using iTunes or Amazon.
If they finally learn to put the needs of the consumer first, I may even drop my boycott of buying new music and start purchasing again. I own 700 CD's, all of which were purchased prior to the start of my boycott about 8 years ago. I stopped my habit of buying a couple CD's every week after reading about the RIAA legislative lobbying efforts and seeing their insane push for DRM. I informed and encouraged everyone I know to do the same.
Who knows? If they do this right, I might even take down the multitude of links I have accumulated on my personal web site asking people to boycott the RIAA (and MPAA) members and pointing to all the published articles about how self-centered, greedy, and power-crazed they are with their insane levels of legislative lobbying, buying congressmen, and treating paying customers like criminals. Their treatment of their loyal customers these past 10 years was just as illogical as if Walmart decided to arrest all of their customers nationwide because they suspected a few of them might have stolen something worth 50 cents.
They seriously could save a fortune by firing the teams of lawyers and lobbyists and just servicing their customers fairly. They might even win back all of their previously loyal customers like me who have felt betrayed and been bitterly angry at them for the past decade because they treated us like criminals after we spent so much money on their products.
So now, let's just sit back and see if the RIAA members' overwhelming greed and stupidity compells them to shoot themselves in the foot once again. What they really need is a HUGE turnover of upper management with young replacements who grasp the concept that the music world has radically changed and they better evolve faster or they will soon become extinct.
The MPAA folks should watch this process closely because without a doubt they are next. The writing is on the wall.