On Oct 21, 2013, at 3:44 , cobaco <[email protected]> wrote: > > People want to reward artists, and consequently they mostly will choose > paying > over piracy.
That, alas, is not the studio's perception or experience. I think their aim in DRM is to put one more piece of data into the balance: making copies available to others is harder. They are, I think, looking for enough of a 'garden fence' that people will normally not cross it. (Other parts of the balance include how desirable the content is, how much it costs, and the ease of finding free but illicit copies, the likelihood of getting caught if you have one, and the penalties for that, and so on). I believe that their perception is that if you give everyone plain un-protected copies, many more people will share with many others, and their market will be substantially reduced. I am *not* in a studio, and I do *not* have the statistics. I do understand that media types, their consumption and purchase patterns, and so on, are all different. > HOWEVER.... DRM makes customers jump through hoops to do so, consequently > giving them an incentive not to pay (nobody likes being made to jump through > hoops). For the ordinary user, who wants to watch a movie, they will (in a well-deployed system) not notice the DRM at all. >> Much of your email imagines a fantasy world in which people who create >> content are obliged to give it away free. That's not the world we live in. > > The definitions I gave are not fantasy, the logical conclusion that they are > mutually incompatible isn't either > > Of the of list similarities between music and movies industries I gave in the > previous e-mail, which if any do you think is fantasy? > > That list of similarities explains _why_ the proposed alternative is > workable, > just as it prooved to be with music. Music has very different purchase, consumption, distribution, and pricing patterns. They are quite different markets. David Singer Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
