Content Provider New Speak
I hate when people try to change language to fit there needs. Oh, consumers think that DRM is a bad thing, we need to start calling it something else. If we do that people might not realize that we are still controlling the rights of the content.
I really do not mind HBO not offering HD content On Demand. This is a market choice they are making. Other companies can provide HD content and HBO can miss out. They have to be able to measure how many subscribers are not signing up for HBO because of this.
What I don't like is the idea that they want cable providers and hardware companies to limit the use of their hardware because HBO is afraid of what people might do with their content. I do not want my hardware limited. I think this is where DRM gets the bad name you are trying to avoid.
Reading the comment above has a funny comment about "burn-to-own DVDs." People already think they have this right. They do not think that they would have to pay HBO extra money for home recording. Since they could do it with VHS and DVD, they are not expecting not to be able to do it with HD-DVD. I wonder what consumers will do when they find out.
I would really like this to come down to business choices. A movie studio would never refuse to screen a movie because there is a chance it might get bootlegged. Getting bootlegged is a cost of doing business. In the end, what HBO does not want is for the market to set the value of their product. They want to find barriers to keep the value of their content high. I think this is a mistake.
"I don't want to use the term DRM any longer," said Zitter, who added that content-protection technology could enable various new applications for cable operators. One example could be "burn-to-own DVDs," where a consumer would use a set-top box with a built-in DVD burner to record a movie onto an optical disc, thus eliminating the costly current process of pressing DVDs and distributing them physically at retail. Another possibility, says Zitter, is "early window exhibition," either in the form of making a movie available through video-on-demand (VOD) the same day as the home video release or allowing home theater users to pay extra to see a high-definition version of a theatrical release in the comfort of their home.
I really do not mind HBO not offering HD content On Demand. This is a market choice they are making. Other companies can provide HD content and HBO can miss out. They have to be able to measure how many subscribers are not signing up for HBO because of this.
What I don't like is the idea that they want cable providers and hardware companies to limit the use of their hardware because HBO is afraid of what people might do with their content. I do not want my hardware limited. I think this is where DRM gets the bad name you are trying to avoid.
Reading the comment above has a funny comment about "burn-to-own DVDs." People already think they have this right. They do not think that they would have to pay HBO extra money for home recording. Since they could do it with VHS and DVD, they are not expecting not to be able to do it with HD-DVD. I wonder what consumers will do when they find out.
I would really like this to come down to business choices. A movie studio would never refuse to screen a movie because there is a chance it might get bootlegged. Getting bootlegged is a cost of doing business. In the end, what HBO does not want is for the market to set the value of their product. They want to find barriers to keep the value of their content high. I think this is a mistake.
Comments