Comment Re:Difference between the land of the free and USS (Score 1) 219
The companies WANT you to have the music; the Soviets didn't. The companies just want you to pay for it, as you should.
I think a more accurate statement would be "The companies just want you to pay for it, as they want you to pay for it. " The conclusion that anyone who is anti-RIAA/MPAA only wants to get the content for nothing is often incorrect; these organizations are expanding copyright to prohibit uses that were earlier considered fair use, which I find objectionable.
They also like DRM technology because it enables new business models, like having content time limited, such that if you view a movie (that you BOUGHT) and want to see it again in a few months, you have to pay for it again. In essence, DRM lets them move from selling content to licensing it. You don't own the content in this scenario, you only pay for the right to use it, in whatever way the content provider decides (e.g. you can view it only once or twice, or only for a certain amount of time, etc.)
I think content providers know that a) these new models would be a Good Thing from their perspective, but b) most consumers would not like them, given that they make more money for the providers without providing anything extra or better for the consumers. In order to make these new models happen, they will use laws that make it difficult if not impossible to not play by their rules.
Of course, even if this new law (or one like it) passes, it won't be the end of the world (although you'll be able to see it from there.) Just because DRM technology has to be in digital devices, content providers won't have to use it. Some may feel they gain a competitive advantage doing things the old-fashioned way. This will last for as long as it takes the RIAA/MPAA to find a way to make non-DRM content illegal. I don't know if they can do that, but if they are hurt by non-DRM content they will do their best.
I think a more accurate statement would be "The companies just want you to pay for it, as they want you to pay for it. " The conclusion that anyone who is anti-RIAA/MPAA only wants to get the content for nothing is often incorrect; these organizations are expanding copyright to prohibit uses that were earlier considered fair use, which I find objectionable.
They also like DRM technology because it enables new business models, like having content time limited, such that if you view a movie (that you BOUGHT) and want to see it again in a few months, you have to pay for it again. In essence, DRM lets them move from selling content to licensing it. You don't own the content in this scenario, you only pay for the right to use it, in whatever way the content provider decides (e.g. you can view it only once or twice, or only for a certain amount of time, etc.)
I think content providers know that a) these new models would be a Good Thing from their perspective, but b) most consumers would not like them, given that they make more money for the providers without providing anything extra or better for the consumers. In order to make these new models happen, they will use laws that make it difficult if not impossible to not play by their rules.
Of course, even if this new law (or one like it) passes, it won't be the end of the world (although you'll be able to see it from there.) Just because DRM technology has to be in digital devices, content providers won't have to use it. Some may feel they gain a competitive advantage doing things the old-fashioned way. This will last for as long as it takes the RIAA/MPAA to find a way to make non-DRM content illegal. I don't know if they can do that, but if they are hurt by non-DRM content they will do their best.
