Comments on: Another Tech Exec Badmouths DRM http://techliberation.com/2006/09/22/another-tech-exec-badmouths-drm/ Keeping politicians' hands off the Net & everything else related to technology Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:51:08 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: tramadol http://techliberation.com/2006/09/22/another-tech-exec-badmouths-drm/comment-page-1/#comment-35148 tramadol Mon, 22 Jan 2007 02:41:20 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/09/22/another-tech-exec-badmouths-drm/#comment-35148 <p>81e31de21f46 Hello! http://www.abc-acupuncture.com/baxqorav tramadol</p> 81e31de21f46 Hello! http://www.abc-acupuncture.com/baxqorav tramadol

]]> By: tramadol http://techliberation.com/2006/09/22/another-tech-exec-badmouths-drm/comment-page-1/#comment-52897 tramadol Mon, 22 Jan 2007 02:41:20 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/09/22/another-tech-exec-badmouths-drm/#comment-52897 <p>81e31de21f46 Hello! <a href="http://www.abc-acupuncture.com/baxqorav">http://www.abc-acupuncture.com/baxqorav</a> tramadol</p> 81e31de21f46 Hello! http://www.abc-acupuncture.com/baxqorav tramadol

]]> By: short url http://techliberation.com/2006/09/22/another-tech-exec-badmouths-drm/comment-page-1/#comment-35147 short url Wed, 20 Dec 2006 10:25:57 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/09/22/another-tech-exec-badmouths-drm/#comment-35147 <p>19462e3b321d Good work http:/0zu.tw/ short url</p> 19462e3b321d Good work http:/0zu.tw/ short url

]]> By: short url http://techliberation.com/2006/09/22/another-tech-exec-badmouths-drm/comment-page-1/#comment-52896 short url Wed, 20 Dec 2006 10:25:57 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/09/22/another-tech-exec-badmouths-drm/#comment-52896 <p>19462e3b321d Good work http:/0zu.tw/ short url</p> 19462e3b321d Good work http:/0zu.tw/ short url

]]> By: Noel Le http://techliberation.com/2006/09/22/another-tech-exec-badmouths-drm/comment-page-1/#comment-52895 Noel Le Sat, 23 Sep 2006 19:23:11 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/09/22/another-tech-exec-badmouths-drm/#comment-52895 <p>The margins may be better for BitTorrent with ad rather than content sales. But will viewing more ads be better for consumers.<br><br><strong><em>advertising-supported content will win out over (DRM) in the long run for movie and</em></strong><br><br>Looking over his interview again, the BitTorrent exec actually thinks DRM free content supported by ads will be more profitable than DRMed-content sales. Funny, is there anything to suggest that (market numbers, viewers increasing to see ads, etc)</p> The margins may be better for BitTorrent with ad rather than content sales. But will viewing more ads be better for consumers.

advertising-supported content will win out over (DRM) in the long run for movie and

Looking over his interview again, the BitTorrent exec actually thinks DRM free content supported by ads will be more profitable than DRMed-content sales. Funny, is there anything to suggest that (market numbers, viewers increasing to see ads, etc)

]]> By: Noel Le http://techliberation.com/2006/09/22/another-tech-exec-badmouths-drm/comment-page-1/#comment-35146 Noel Le Sat, 23 Sep 2006 18:23:11 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/09/22/another-tech-exec-badmouths-drm/#comment-35146 <p>The margins may be better for BitTorrent with ad rather than content sales. But will viewing more ads be better for consumers.</p> <p><strong><em>advertising-supported content will win out over (DRM) in the long run for movie and</em></strong></p> <p>Looking over his interview again, the BitTorrent exec actually thinks DRM free content supported by ads will be more profitable than DRMed-content sales. Funny, is there anything to suggest that (market numbers, viewers increasing to see ads, etc)</p> The margins may be better for BitTorrent with ad rather than content sales. But will viewing more ads be better for consumers.

advertising-supported content will win out over (DRM) in the long run for movie and

Looking over his interview again, the BitTorrent exec actually thinks DRM free content supported by ads will be more profitable than DRMed-content sales. Funny, is there anything to suggest that (market numbers, viewers increasing to see ads, etc)

]]> By: Mark Seecof http://techliberation.com/2006/09/22/another-tech-exec-badmouths-drm/comment-page-1/#comment-52894 Mark Seecof Sat, 23 Sep 2006 05:58:05 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/09/22/another-tech-exec-badmouths-drm/#comment-52894 <p>Let's think about this. After selling the same songs over and over to the same listeners on 45's, LP's, 8-tracks, cassettes, and CD's, why exactly would a label oppose a DRM scheme that prevents the listener from moving the songs he buys to a new playback device someday? Wouldn't a rational label prefer an endless succession of incompatible DRM schemes tied to the must-have listening devices of the day--a new one every few years?</p> Let’s think about this. After selling the same songs over and over to the same listeners on 45′s, LP’s, 8-tracks, cassettes, and CD’s, why exactly would a label oppose a DRM scheme that prevents the listener from moving the songs he buys to a new playback device someday? Wouldn’t a rational label prefer an endless succession of incompatible DRM schemes tied to the must-have listening devices of the day–a new one every few years?

]]> By: Mark Seecof http://techliberation.com/2006/09/22/another-tech-exec-badmouths-drm/comment-page-1/#comment-35145 Mark Seecof Sat, 23 Sep 2006 04:58:05 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/09/22/another-tech-exec-badmouths-drm/#comment-35145 <p>Let's think about this. After selling the same songs over and over to the same listeners on 45's, LP's, 8-tracks, cassettes, and CD's, why exactly would a label oppose a DRM scheme that prevents the listener from moving the songs he buys to a new playback device someday? Wouldn't a rational label prefer an endless succession of incompatible DRM schemes tied to the must-have listening devices of the day--a new one every few years?</p> Let’s think about this. After selling the same songs over and over to the same listeners on 45′s, LP’s, 8-tracks, cassettes, and CD’s, why exactly would a label oppose a DRM scheme that prevents the listener from moving the songs he buys to a new playback device someday? Wouldn’t a rational label prefer an endless succession of incompatible DRM schemes tied to the must-have listening devices of the day–a new one every few years?

]]> By: Noel Le http://techliberation.com/2006/09/22/another-tech-exec-badmouths-drm/comment-page-1/#comment-52893 Noel Le Sat, 23 Sep 2006 01:17:46 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/09/22/another-tech-exec-badmouths-drm/#comment-52893 <p>Hmmm. I believe Apple itself benefits from DRM via its iTunes service. Is this right.<br><br>Other excerpts from the BitTorrent exec: <strong><em>the future will not be marked by (DRM). It will be marked by advertising-supported content that's clear of DRM, because the content publisher wants it to be as widely distributed as possible and consumed over as many platforms as possible.</em></strong><br><br>Wait a minute. Does content become merely a means of attracting site visitors and users in order to sell ads. It seems like lower and middle market artists might buy into this, but big bands will hold out to sell their content rather than act as ad beacons.<br><br>And doesn't the Internet already provide wide-distribution of content.<br><br>You don't switch business models, going from content based revenue to ad-based revenue, unless ITS MORE PROFITABLE TO DO SO. The worse reason to switch is to allay consumer concern about DRM.<br><br>I'm dubious about ad-based businesses b/c they seem to have a revenue ceiling. I'll leave it to market researchers to figure out the exact comparison of content v ad models, but I'm skeptical nonetheless.<br><br>If this exec is so sure about selling ads rather than content, then why doesn't he do it now. Just get some bands that will hand over their songs without DRM, distribute them and sells ads. Whats stopping it? The Studios are, right? Well, why doesn't he move ahead and use content that doesn't go through the Studios. They probably would not attract viewers to ads.<br><br>Well then, how do you get the Studios to play in with this new business plan. Again, we return to the issue of incentives.<br><br>Even if DRM, as Tim argues, is "bad" for consumers and service/hardware makers, if the Studios want it, then its going to stick around. You have to give the Studios incentive to join the new plan. You can't just tell them it would be better for everyone if they set aside their fears, and hand over the goodies w/o that mechanism (DRM) which gives them at least some assurance against rampant piracy.</p> Hmmm. I believe Apple itself benefits from DRM via its iTunes service. Is this right.

Other excerpts from the BitTorrent exec: the future will not be marked by (DRM). It will be marked by advertising-supported content that’s clear of DRM, because the content publisher wants it to be as widely distributed as possible and consumed over as many platforms as possible.

Wait a minute. Does content become merely a means of attracting site visitors and users in order to sell ads. It seems like lower and middle market artists might buy into this, but big bands will hold out to sell their content rather than act as ad beacons.

And doesn’t the Internet already provide wide-distribution of content.

You don’t switch business models, going from content based revenue to ad-based revenue, unless ITS MORE PROFITABLE TO DO SO. The worse reason to switch is to allay consumer concern about DRM.

I’m dubious about ad-based businesses b/c they seem to have a revenue ceiling. I’ll leave it to market researchers to figure out the exact comparison of content v ad models, but I’m skeptical nonetheless.

If this exec is so sure about selling ads rather than content, then why doesn’t he do it now. Just get some bands that will hand over their songs without DRM, distribute them and sells ads. Whats stopping it? The Studios are, right? Well, why doesn’t he move ahead and use content that doesn’t go through the Studios. They probably would not attract viewers to ads.

Well then, how do you get the Studios to play in with this new business plan. Again, we return to the issue of incentives.

Even if DRM, as Tim argues, is “bad” for consumers and service/hardware makers, if the Studios want it, then its going to stick around. You have to give the Studios incentive to join the new plan. You can’t just tell them it would be better for everyone if they set aside their fears, and hand over the goodies w/o that mechanism (DRM) which gives them at least some assurance against rampant piracy.

]]> By: Noel Le http://techliberation.com/2006/09/22/another-tech-exec-badmouths-drm/comment-page-1/#comment-35144 Noel Le Sat, 23 Sep 2006 00:17:46 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/09/22/another-tech-exec-badmouths-drm/#comment-35144 <p>Hmmm. I believe Apple itself benefits from DRM via its iTunes service. Is this right.</p> <p>Other excerpts from the BitTorrent exec: <strong><em>the future will not be marked by (DRM). It will be marked by advertising-supported content that's clear of DRM, because the content publisher wants it to be as widely distributed as possible and consumed over as many platforms as possible.</em></strong></p> <p>Wait a minute. Does content become merely a means of attracting site visitors and users in order to sell ads. It seems like lower and middle market artists might buy into this, but big bands will hold out to sell their content rather than act as ad beacons.</p> <p>And doesn't the Internet already provide wide-distribution of content.</p> <p>You don't switch business models, going from content based revenue to ad-based revenue, unless ITS MORE PROFITABLE TO DO SO. The worse reason to switch is to allay consumer concern about DRM.</p> <p>I'm dubious about ad-based businesses b/c they seem to have a revenue ceiling. I'll leave it to market researchers to figure out the exact comparison of content v ad models, but I'm skeptical nonetheless.</p> <p>If this exec is so sure about selling ads rather than content, then why doesn't he do it now. Just get some bands that will hand over their songs without DRM, distribute them and sells ads. Whats stopping it? The Studios are, right? Well, why doesn't he move ahead and use content that doesn't go through the Studios. They probably would not attract viewers to ads.</p> <p>Well then, how do you get the Studios to play in with this new business plan. Again, we return to the issue of incentives.</p> <p>Even if DRM, as Tim argues, is "bad" for consumers and service/hardware makers, if the Studios want it, then its going to stick around. You have to give the Studios incentive to join the new plan. You can't just tell them it would be better for everyone if they set aside their fears, and hand over the goodies w/o that mechanism (DRM) which gives them at least some assurance against rampant piracy.</p> Hmmm. I believe Apple itself benefits from DRM via its iTunes service. Is this right.

Other excerpts from the BitTorrent exec: the future will not be marked by (DRM). It will be marked by advertising-supported content that’s clear of DRM, because the content publisher wants it to be as widely distributed as possible and consumed over as many platforms as possible.

Wait a minute. Does content become merely a means of attracting site visitors and users in order to sell ads. It seems like lower and middle market artists might buy into this, but big bands will hold out to sell their content rather than act as ad beacons.

And doesn’t the Internet already provide wide-distribution of content.

You don’t switch business models, going from content based revenue to ad-based revenue, unless ITS MORE PROFITABLE TO DO SO. The worse reason to switch is to allay consumer concern about DRM.

I’m dubious about ad-based businesses b/c they seem to have a revenue ceiling. I’ll leave it to market researchers to figure out the exact comparison of content v ad models, but I’m skeptical nonetheless.

If this exec is so sure about selling ads rather than content, then why doesn’t he do it now. Just get some bands that will hand over their songs without DRM, distribute them and sells ads. Whats stopping it? The Studios are, right? Well, why doesn’t he move ahead and use content that doesn’t go through the Studios. They probably would not attract viewers to ads.

Well then, how do you get the Studios to play in with this new business plan. Again, we return to the issue of incentives.

Even if DRM, as Tim argues, is “bad” for consumers and service/hardware makers, if the Studios want it, then its going to stick around. You have to give the Studios incentive to join the new plan. You can’t just tell them it would be better for everyone if they set aside their fears, and hand over the goodies w/o that mechanism (DRM) which gives them at least some assurance against rampant piracy.

]]>