ZDNet’s David Berlind has a longish, thoughtful piece about the “untold” story of Sony’s DRM fiasco. In essence Berlind warns that the real problem isn’t Sony’s lack of judgment and public apology but the fact that DRM is popping up all over the place.
Berlind warns that the next big arena for DRM disaster is video.
Sony’s rootkit, as bad as it was, isn’t the real story. The way the entertainment cartel is applying DRM as a whole is the real story. They’re applying DRM in a way that the Sony fiasco was inevitable. This wasn’t the first time lack of DRM interoperability manifested itself in the end-user experience in an ugly way, and it won’t be the last. Sure, the rest of the entertainment industry is rewriting its DRM playbook to keep from repeating Sony’s history. But rest assured, another DRM-inspired trainwreck will come along that will light the grapevine ablaze and some other content company will end up with egg on its face when, in reality, it’s Microsoft and Apple that we should really be angry with; two companies that are driving incompatible DRM technologies into the marketplace in a way that twists the royal (or should that be “royalty”) screws into the world.Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 5:43 PM | Print | Comments (0)
Verizon plans to flip the switch on its Fios-based video service next week in the DC exurb of Herndon, marking the second market launch of the fiber-to-the-premise video service behind Keller, TX. Verizon is undercutting the prices charged by incumbent cable operator Cox, charging $39.95/month for its main package of more than 175 music and video channels; $12.95/month for a basic package of 15 to 39 local broadcast and community channels, and $32.95 for a bilingual package of nearly 140 channels.
This interesting, local-oriented, article in today’s Washington Post provides insight into the nature of how bootleg films make into onto the street within weeks, or days, after a film’s premiere. In a sting operation, FBI agents and DC police nabbed a warehouse distribution ring — for the second time in one year.
The pirates, operating under the name Y Y Enterprises, traffic in typical hand-held digital camera reproductions of films made in theaters. The article notes that it’s pretty cheap to set up a major bootleg operation. The cost of the cameras are pretty cheap and a mass DVD burner costs only “several thousand dollars.”
Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 4:52 PM | Print | Comments (0)
In a post that ties together Google’s battle with publishers and Apple’s battle with record companies over variable pricing, Michael Parekh notes that “there’s no online site that gives you a sense of what a piece of content is worth from a consumer point of view.” But he predicts this will change, since “[a]fter all, Content ultimately seeks Attention, and Attention ultimately prices Content.”
So Attention is chugging down the road towards more friction-free marketplaces. And that again leaves us with Content, which for the moment is being held back at the dam by the herculean “little Dutch Boy” efforts of the media industry, legal machinations and all. Remember, contrary to the pronouncements of the media industry, this is NOT about “Free” and/or “Pirated” Content. This is about who gets to set the price for Content in the future.
Parekh quotes and then paraphrases a statement by Umair at Bubblegeneration. Umair’s version goes like this:
“Because attention becomes scarce at the margin. Attention used to be like water for the media industry - cheap, plentiful, and available pretty much ubiquitously. Now, it’s like oil - expensive, scarce, and subject to more and more severe shocks.”
Parkekh turns this around into a vision of a “‘Dream’ scenario from a consumer perspective.”
Because Content becomes ubiquitous at the margin. Content used to be like Oil for the media industry - expensive, scarce and subject to more and more shocks, available pretty much only at the places of their choice. Now, it’s like water - cheap, plentiful, and available pretty much ubiquitously, wherever, whenever and whatever the consumer desires.
How long do you think before we get to this reality, when Content, like Attention before it, finds it’s own water level? A King, finally serving at the pleasure of it’s subjects.Posted by Mitch Shapiro at 3:08 PM | Print | Comments (0)
In today’s New York Times, Edward Wyatt reports on what seemed to be a lively debate Thursday evening at the “Live From the New York Public Library” program. The topic was Google’s Book Search program (formerly called Google Print) and, according to Wyatt, it “was the first time the various parties had faced off publicly.”
Wyatt includes quotes from David Drummond, Google’s general counsel, Allan Adler, vp, legal and governmental affairs at the Association of American Publishers, Nick Taylor, president of the Authors Guild and Lawrence Lessig, founder of Stanford’s Center for Internet and Society.
While the parties clearly have different views of “fair use” as it relates to Google’s move to make digital copies of books for search purposes, the debate also highlighted financial issues tied to the collision of Google’s business model with those found in the traditional publishing business.
This got me wondering if a resolution of the conflict might ultimately involve Google providing publishers a share of advertising revenue related to search results that yield Google-generated excerpts from their books. A system to do this might be more complex than AdSense, since multiple books might come up in the same search, but the smart folks at Google could probably figure out a way to make it work…e.g., maybe only the top one or two book listings would get a share of revenue, or something along those lines.
Legal arguments about fair use aside, it seems that, if Google plans to “Google-ize” the world’s content distribution industries, it will trigger less resistance and help insure it “does no evil” if it continues to develop ways to share the enormous wealth it is generating (and sometimes redirecting) as part of the economic transition it is helping to lead.
Here are some highlights from Thursday’s discussion, staring with Adler’s point that Google is, without authorization or compensation, using copyright owners’ intellectual property to boost its ad sales:
Adler…argued that Google’s primary purpose in creating the Book Search service was to promote its arsenal of search engines, the main source of the company’s $5 billion in expected revenues this year. “If they are going to directly promote it through the use of valuable content, intellectual property created by others, those others should at least have the right to be able to have permission asked, if not to be able also to share in the revenue.”
But Drummond and Lessig argue that, instead of harm, Google’s actions could generate additional book sales and revenues for copyright holders:
David Drummond, Google’s general counsel, said the company’s service allowed users to find books that are in libraries but no longer in bookstores, and that would otherwise go undiscovered by most potential readers.
“What you want to do is to get a kind of revenue that right now you don’t get at all,” Professor Lessig said. “So it’s about taking part of the value that’s created here” by Google, “not about protecting yourself against losses as produced by this new technology.”
But Adler is not so sure that potential revenues justify the risk:
Mr. Adler said Google’s contention that its search program might somehow increase sales of books was speculation at best. “When people make inquiries using Google’s search engine and they come up with references to books, they are just as likely to come to this fine institution to look up those references as they are to buy them,” he said, referring to the Public Library.
Mr. Adler…also noted that while Google is currently making only one specified use of the material it copies, publishers and authors cannot be assured of the company’s future plans. If Google is allowed to go down this path unfettered, he added, copyright holders will have no way to stop others who want to do the same thing, perhaps with greater financial harm to authors and publishers.
Taylor adds:
The issue here is indeed control. It is the appropriation of material that they don’t own for a purpose that is, however altruistic and lofty and wonderful, nevertheless a commercial enterprise.
So, maybe to help get copyright owners onboard, Google will ultimately need to sweeten the pot by offering them a piece of its “Internet economy” search-ad revenues to help them deal financially and psychologically with the digital disruption facing their traditional business models and the potential risks it raises for their future revenue streams.
Posted by Mitch Shapiro at 12:38 PM | Print | Comments (0)
Blogs We Read
