A DRM problem that needs addressing.
Most people who know much about the subject agree that music CDs and DVDs are overpriced - discs that costs pennies to make are being sold for pounds.
Most tech-savvy people agree that this is a big incentive for P2P piracy and say that if the industry wants people to buy instead of download, they should drop their prices to a more reasonable level.
The industry, naturally, says "Charge less money? Charge Less Money?!?" and slaps another DRM scheme on their products to maintain what is effectively their monopoly.
The thing is. . . ignoring all the "DRM just turns honest users into pirates" debate, something that seems to be largely ignored is:
A DRM-free CD is worth a lot more to me than a DRM'd one. If I buy a non-DRM CD, I can rip it & play it on my PC, copy it onto an iPod, copy it to tape & listen to it in the car. . . I can do a lot with this CD. Legally and ethically, I can do a lot more than just play the CD in a CD player.
If, however, I buy a DRM CD, then I can't do those things. And yet the DRM CD will cost just as much as the non-DRM one.
Faced with this immense loss in value to the consumer, what exactly is the justification for keeping the price as high? If I buy a DVD player with less features, I expect to pay less. If I buy a DVD with less features, why am I expected to pay the same?
Anybody?
If you want me to buy a CD or DVD with a shedload of restrictions, I might actually accept that. If the price reflects the decreased value it has. I'd be willing to buy the occasional DRM'd DVD if it only cost a couple of pounds.
But pay as much to get much less? How does this benefit me, exactly? I have a GP2X arriving tomorrow (I hope) and I intend to transfer DVD movies & CD music onto it. I won't be able to do that with Creature Comforts because (I discovered after buying it) it's copy-protected and won't run on my computer.
The DVD is therefore worth less to me than all my others. And yet it cost me just as much. DRM has cost me a large chunk of the value a DVD has to me.
I'm not a pirate. And yet, DRM is causing me problems. And it's not giving me any compensation for those problems.
Why, therefore, should I be anything but anti-DRM?
(And, one other thing to ponder: Creature Comforts is avilable on several bittorrent sites. So what exactly did the DRM accomplish, other than pissing off at least one paying, non-pirating customer?)
Most tech-savvy people agree that this is a big incentive for P2P piracy and say that if the industry wants people to buy instead of download, they should drop their prices to a more reasonable level.
The industry, naturally, says "Charge less money? Charge Less Money?!?" and slaps another DRM scheme on their products to maintain what is effectively their monopoly.
The thing is. . . ignoring all the "DRM just turns honest users into pirates" debate, something that seems to be largely ignored is:
A DRM-free CD is worth a lot more to me than a DRM'd one. If I buy a non-DRM CD, I can rip it & play it on my PC, copy it onto an iPod, copy it to tape & listen to it in the car. . . I can do a lot with this CD. Legally and ethically, I can do a lot more than just play the CD in a CD player.
If, however, I buy a DRM CD, then I can't do those things. And yet the DRM CD will cost just as much as the non-DRM one.
Faced with this immense loss in value to the consumer, what exactly is the justification for keeping the price as high? If I buy a DVD player with less features, I expect to pay less. If I buy a DVD with less features, why am I expected to pay the same?
Anybody?
If you want me to buy a CD or DVD with a shedload of restrictions, I might actually accept that. If the price reflects the decreased value it has. I'd be willing to buy the occasional DRM'd DVD if it only cost a couple of pounds.
But pay as much to get much less? How does this benefit me, exactly? I have a GP2X arriving tomorrow (I hope) and I intend to transfer DVD movies & CD music onto it. I won't be able to do that with Creature Comforts because (I discovered after buying it) it's copy-protected and won't run on my computer.
The DVD is therefore worth less to me than all my others. And yet it cost me just as much. DRM has cost me a large chunk of the value a DVD has to me.
I'm not a pirate. And yet, DRM is causing me problems. And it's not giving me any compensation for those problems.
Why, therefore, should I be anything but anti-DRM?
(And, one other thing to ponder: Creature Comforts is avilable on several bittorrent sites. So what exactly did the DRM accomplish, other than pissing off at least one paying, non-pirating customer?)
2 Comments:
DRM... I just don't have enough contempt for it. Music companies will play a *heavy* price for their high-handedness.
They already are, by the way. I have no sympathy.
Yep. Doesn't it just warm your heart to read stories like Texas [...] filed a civil lawsuit on Monday against Sony [...] seeking civil penalties of $100,000 per violation? :o)
Post a Comment
<< Home