how-to block ads
|
joeMI
join:2006-08-15
Mcmillan, MI
| What business model would really work?
People have often written about copyright owners coming up with a better business model, pricing, etc.
Years ago, if you gave content to a friend and they copied it, it was lower quality. If they passed it on, it became practically unwatchable. If the person liked it, there was a good chance they would go out and buy a copy for themselves.
With digital, you get a perfect copy every time...no matter how many copies you make or your friends or their friends. It's flawless.
I'm not sure what businesses can do because the bottom line is: People are cheap.
Lets say they charge $1.00 per TV episode. Are you going to pay $22 for a season or are you going to get it from a friend who purchased it last week?
Don't lie. You'll hand your friend a memory stick and get it from them.
And when there are multiple seasons where all 9 seasons of Seinfeld would cost say $198? How many people would get it from a friend to save $200? A lot. People are cheap. And $200 is a lot of money to most people.
So I guess my questions are...
1. What business model would you propose to copyright owners?
2. How much should they charge for a TV episode? A movie? A song?
3. How would you discourage excessive file sharing?
Just my two cents,
Joe
--
HughesNet | Business Internet plan | HN7000S | .98m/2W dish | 91W:1050MHz | 65 signal | ACP 82 | 1150Kbps/80Kbps | |
russotto
join:2000-10-05
Collegeville, PA
| said by joeMI  :So I guess my questions are... 1. What business model would you propose to copyright owners? As Worf sayeth unto Q, "Die."
If their survival requires the curtailment of my rights which they have partially achieved and continue to demand the expansion of, then they should not survive. | |
redhatnation
Premium
join:2005-06-02
Woodbridge, VA
 ·Comcast
| reply to joeMI
said by joeMI :Lets say they charge $1.00 per TV episode. Are you going to pay $22 for a season or are you going to get it from a friend who purchased it last week? Don't lie. You'll hand your friend a memory stick and get it from them. I submit that Apple's iTunes Music Store is the perfect case for an evolving business model that meets your three requirements.
Plus, I would pay the $22. Small price to pay for the convenience offered. | |
jhboricua
ExMod 2000-01
join:2000-06-06
Minneapolis, MN
clubs:
2 edits | reply to joeMI
said by joeMI :People have often written about copyright owners coming up with a better business model, pricing, etc. Years ago, if you gave content to a friend and they copied it, it was lower quality. If they passed it on, it became practically unwatchable. If the person liked it, there was a good chance they would go out and buy a copy for themselves. With digital, you get a perfect copy every time...no matter how many copies you make or your friends or their friends. It's flawless. Though it may be 'perfect' in the sense that is digital in nature it doesn't necessarily makes it better than the original product all the time. A 128Kbps ripped song is a far cry from the original CD quality song. This is particularly true on video content.
said by joeMI :I'm not sure what businesses can do because the bottom line is: People are cheap. Just as the labels are greedy and slow to adapt to the digital age. It balances out. 
said by joeMI :So I guess my questions are... 1. What business model would you propose to copyright owners? 2. How much should they charge for a TV episode? A movie? A song? 3. How would you discourage excessive file sharing? To me the problem is that, though the 'digital' product they are pushing out is vastly inferior to the physical product you can get at the store, their current pricing makes doesn't reflect this, it actually makes it more expensive. Add to this the insane restrictions imposed by the DRM they attach to this digital products, (often tied up to one device, no upgrade path. Time limited, play limited, etc), and it is no wonder people will look for the freely available content.
As for your questions:
1. I don't know the answer, only that the current model the labels wish for won't work. They could start by stopping the alienation of their own customers by their actions. Stop bribing in legislation whose only purpose is to perpetuate a dying business model and harrass legitimate customers.
2. They can charge what they want, but it should be reasonable considering the quality you're getting. And once they add DRM restrictions, the value drops drastically for the consumer.
3. There's no discouraging file sharing because there's nothing wrong with file sharing. I think you meant copyrighted works. Well, the sad reality is that is been around even before the internet. And to some degree, the only thing the internet has done is to allow more artists works to be exposed to more people than before, which is not necessarily a bad thing, even for the artist.
--
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." - Albert Einstein
Jose A. Hernandez * System Admin * MPLS, Minnesota, USA * | |
soulwynd
join:2006-07-16
brazil
| reply to joeMI
As an anarchist, I think my opinion is obvious. Down with copyright. If someone can take something and make it better the only person losing was the ass who couldn't make better use of his idea beforehand. The rest of us win whenever something is improved and/or shared.
When it comes down to music and videos, freaking artists gain most of their money with concerts and cinema tickets. Selling cds and dvds is only another way to keep milking the public but most of that money doesn't go to the artists. | |
Moto
@rogers.com
| reply to jhboricua
I have been watching this go on for 15 years about Big company's wanting to make a buck and make all the endusers suffer with their DRM, and trying to pass laws for total control of your connection.
This is coming from mostly US Companies that are very greedy.
Take a look at the US health Care (there isn't any)and the companies that run it, yes people have to pay/get insurance for their health care unlike most other G8 nations, Its starting to sound very similar with the entrainment industry, The Record and Video Companies want to turn the internet,DVD's etc. into a money pit only for them and not the writers & personal that made the music or videos and cause grief for the end users to even try and play on their own devices and tv's. These companies aren't losing out, they're still making profits, but that not good enough, they want it all and thats greed.
It is a pretty sad state of affairs when Money/Greed is the only factor and the way of life in the good old USA.
Greedy companies = Bad Karma | |
major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA
clubs:
| reply to joeMI
said by joeMI :With digital, you get a perfect copy every time...no matter how many copies you make or your friends or their friends. It's flawless. Hello, and welcome to 1998. That same argument was used by lobbyists and the **AAs to get the DMCA pass. Unfortunately for you and your argument, digital copies are anything but "flawless."
said by joeMI :I'm not sure what businesses can do because the bottom line is: People Industry is cheap. And greedy. said by joeMI :So I guess my questions are... 1. What business model would you propose to copyright owners? Gee, just off the top of my head:
1. Nix the DMCA.
2. Amend current copyright law to reflect fair use.
3. Stop waging a litigation war on consumers.
4. Curtail industry ::GREED::
All of the above will go a long way in fixing the copyright debacle. File sharing isn't going away anytime soon. BTW there is no such thing as "excessive" file sharing. If you buy into that myth, then you are obviously deriving your livelihood from the content industry.
--
The Toll
Let's Go Flyers!
| |
grandpinaple
join:2006-01-03
New York, NY
| That article is from 2000 and you know it is a crock of shit. Maybe this, maybe that, maybe there will be one bit out of ten trillion that gets miscopied. The truth is copies these days especially to hard drives are so close to perfect the human ear wouldn't pick it up. I can hardly find a drive these days without error correction. The article is clearly a grasping at straws argument against the corporations that seek to produce content and argue to protect that content.
The answers to the original questions are:
1) For music, unfortunately the only way to make money now is through live performances, given that distribution is hard to enforce, although there are people still willing to pay money if the CD looks nice etc... people will pay for nice physical medium and the cheapos will download for free, either way I guarantee the ARTIST won't be starting. As for the RIAA and MPAA executives I couldn't give two shits if they went out of business.
As for movies, the same deal applies including the part about live performances (not everyone has a giant TV and occasionally wants the movie theater experience). Just stop with bullshit figures like, "Oh it did poorly in theaters it only made 80 million when the movie cost 120 million to make" and start counting the DVD sales and every penny you got from the movie not just the movie theater profits.
I could go on, but I think you are starting to see the picture...
2) They should be free for personal use... that is the bottom line. Charge whatever you want on services like itunes, but if people want to use torrents, usenet, sneakernet, don't have civil or criminal laws penalizing this. There will always be a market for things like itunes (see allofmp3) when the price is reasonable. Right now people still buy off of itunes because it is the easiest thing to use, maybe lower to price so people buy more volume and feel like they are getting more bang for the buck.
3) You shouldn't. | |
joeMI
join:2006-08-15
Mcmillan, MI
| reply to joeMI
OK, I need to clarify.
Regarding flawless copy.
I was referring to the fact that there is no generation loss in copying digital material. The copy equals the original in quality. If you copy a VHS tape, it is slightly less quality. If you give that tape to a friend and they make a copy for one of their friends, that copy is even worse than the original.
Yes the downloaded versions are less quality. Frankly, that is why I do not do that. I was referring to DVD quality video and CD quality audio. I apologize for not being more specific.
Regarding excessive file sharing.
I was not talking about general file sharing but to the issue of copying TV episodes and movies. If I buy a single copy of Spider-Man 3 on DVD, I can copy that a million times. If too many people do that, there will not be a Spider-Man 4 because the studio will not have the money to pay the actors, etc. If they raise movie ticket prices, people stop going to the movies. If they raise DVD prices, the rental market has to raise prices which reduces rentals. The cash has to come from somewhere.
Unless you get the entire industry to take a pay cut, I don't see how the financials balance out in the end. We all love the $100M+ movies and somehow, the world wide audience has to pay for that production cost, plus overhead, plus some extra cash to cover the flops like Gigli. Not every movie rakes in $200M at the box office.
It is a very complicated issue. I too believe that if you buy a product (i.e. movie), you should be able to enjoy it as many times as you like on as many devices as you like.
Perhaps, the content can be locked with a credit card number and players require the credit card number to play the content. That would allow individual freedom within a household but I doubt too many people would give out their credit card numbers to coworkers, friends, etc. That would stop excessive DVD/CD sharing.
Perhaps, the big distributors (networks, big studios, RIAA, big record labels, etc.) will all disappear as we individually subscribe to the people/company that produces our favorite content..TV shows, movies and music. I guess that would mean, buy it at Wal-Mart.
Who knows.
Thanks for listening and responding.
Joe
--
HughesNet | Business Internet plan | HN7000S | .98m/2W dish | 91W:1050MHz | 65 signal | ACP 82 | 1150Kbps/80Kbps | |
|
