Re: I strongly urge all supporters to reconsider the EME proposal. It is not in your best interests!

On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 2:45 PM, piranna@gmail.com <piranna@gmail.com>wrote:

> > Not quite. I think the web should support content distribution models
> other
> > than those in which the user is granted full rights to do whatever they
> > choose with the content after it has been downloaded. For example rental
> and
> > subscription models. Right now, those who sell content without full
> rights
> > require technical as well as legal restrictions on the customer.
> >
> In XXth century it would make a sense with material things like VHS
> and similar, where only one copy was available at a time and if you
> rent it, you don't own it during that time, but now, on internet,
> everything that you transfer is not really transfered, but copied.
> Rental and sale cost and actions are the same and only diference is
> that with rental or subscription model is suposed that you delete it
> later (or with DRM, it could be deleted automatically). The point is,
> that's an artificial limitation, and that's the main root why it's a
> no sense. You've copied it already when did the transfer! Why don't
> you have the right to own it later? The distributor is not loosing
> anything in the same way it would if I don't give back the VHS to
> Blockbuster!
>

You are assuming that the entire rationale for rental/subscription model
for VHS/DVD was that there was a scarce resource (the physical object) that
needed to be shared.

Actually, the physical resource - especially when it came to DVDs - was not
very expensive. It's not the physical resource that you were mostly paying
for when you rented a DVD. This is illustrated by the fact that a
subscription model for DVDs, where you keep the DVD for as long as you
like, was and remains profitable.

Just as with rental/subscription streaming, what you're mainly paying for
is limited use of the content. The delivery mechanism - the physical DVD -
provided a convenient way to restrict usage to that purchased - or at least
place some barriers there. I'm sure people used to rent DVDs and rip them.

The reasons why it's useful to be able to sell limited rights have little
to do with the means of distribution or the involvement of the physical
object. It's useful to do that because a limited right - to view the
content for a period of time, for example, or only whilst remaining a
subscriber - can be sold at a lower price than "ownership" rights that
fewer people will purchase only once. Lower price means more people can
afford it, which, yes, also means more revenue. Further, in the case of
video, it aligns more closely with what people actually want. Most people
want to watch a film or TV episode once. Few people want to own it forever.
And those who want to watch it once generally prefer a model where they do
not have to pay the "forever" price.

Again, the price charged has little to do with the physical cost of
distribution. The fact, that you mention, that downloading something to own
vs to rent carry essentially the same delivery cost is irrelevant because
the delivery cost is such an insignificant portion of the overall costs.


>
> You can add some inherent Intelectual Property agreements to the
> content, like don't share the file with your friends or on P2P, I
> agree on that (although I don't share that opinion, but that's a
> diferent discussion), but regarding to the container (the file), I
> should have control over ALL that's on my computer RAM of harddisk,
> and do whatever i feel is the better for me, also make so much backup
> copies I want in local or on any number of computers, and view it in
> any player, also ones I've coded myself if I want, without asking
> permissions to anybody because it's some data that's in MY computer.
>

If that's what you want, that's fine. But you can't then download content
that comes which restrictions that go against any of those things.

Remember, you agree to the terms of a product offer *before* you pay for
and get the product. I know you would like these products to be available
on different terms from those that are offered. I can't fix that for you.


>
>
> > It's a reality, as you noted above, that technical restrictions are
> required
> > (by the content owners) for such content.
> >
> > Changing that reality is, indeed, a whole other debate (which I've
> pointed
> > out a few times here).
> >
> I don't think so, Netflix is always capable to say 'no' (and your
> customers with thank you for do it).
>

Actually, I do not think we could just say no to DRM at this time. The
content available to us would drop dramatically, causing subscribers to
leave. The studios would happily sell it to Amazon or others who would
quickly jump to fill in the void. Our share price would plummet and we
would probably all be sued by our shareholders for breach of fiduciary
duty, or whatever it would be called, for making such a decision.

If DRM requirements are ever dropped by the studios it will be because they
decide to drop them not because they are pushed into it. I expect they
would only ever do that after it has been demonstrated that the sky will
not fall in, but I am not them, so I'm just guessing.


>
>
> > The reason all users (web and app users too) have to bear these costs is
> > because the producers of the content require them to, in exchange for
> > viewing the content. The producers of the content have their own reasons
> for
> > that, which you could debate with them. What I have a problem with is the
> > idea that they are not entitled to attach (perfectly legal) conditions of
> > their choosing to their product offer. Noone has to accept that offer.
> >
> Netflix is not forced to do it, too ;-)
>

Noone is forced to watch streaming video, but if we did not stream video we
would not be Netflix. I guess we could abandon the whole streaming video
thing and just run the DVD-by-mail service, but again our shareholders
would not thank us. So yes, we *are* forced by our duty to our shareholders
not to recklessly endanger the business.

>
>
> > Often
> > it is argued that the technical restrictions are wrong because the legal
> > restrictions they enforce are also wrong in some way.
> >
> You've condensed the problem in just one phrase, thank you :-)
>

So yours is a rather different position than Hugo's then. That its wrong
for people to sell products on perfectly legal terms of their choosing is
hardly compatible with basic freedoms. Neither party in any potential
transaction gets to dictate terms to the other. You either find something
mutually agreeable or walk away from the deal.

...Mark

>
> --
> "Si quieres viajar alrededor del mundo y ser invitado a hablar en un
> monton de sitios diferentes, simplemente escribe un sistema operativo
> Unix."
> – Linus Tordvals, creador del sistema operativo Linux
>
>
> --
> "Si quieres viajar alrededor del mundo y ser invitado a hablar en un
> monton de sitios diferentes, simplemente escribe un sistema operativo
> Unix."
> – Linus Tordvals, creador del sistema operativo Linux
>
>