Site Feed

contact me


my Flickr

Sad Salvation Fotolog

Super Karate Monkey Fist

Costume Checklist

Home

Technorati Profile

Reads

Imaginary Year

Invisible City

Raccoon

It Is What It Is

Aaron's Weblog

CraBlogged

Me(ish)

faisal.com

Adventures in Trouble- shooting

Sugary Sweet Machine

San Jose Blogs

Daily C

Random Curiosity

Elkit in Wonderland

Ego, Ego, Ego!

GuysBlog

Sci-Fi Hi-Fi

Intricate Plot

Torches Over the Wino

is that all there is?

BotzBlog

are you there god? it's me, margaret.

Dahlshouse

post-hip chick

Kadavy.net

Mike's Blog

Zeigen

ALL ART BURNS

Slacy's Blog

Paul's Time Sink

Disorderly Content

fling93 loves fishies

UnNatural History

Munich-
maedchen


Introspection/ Extroversion

derf content, blog-style

antwon.com

SF Bay Bloggers

San Francisco Bay Area Journals

The Bay Area Is Talking

Random Blogs

Will You Still Love Me Tomorrow?

Inactive

Photo-a-day

Better Than Reportingly

Sans Sheriff

House Band

Here Are The Facts You Requested

Other Things

Jeremy's Superfun Portal of Mystery

Invisible City

Angela's Daily Planet

Bob Pence

Peter Conrad

biscoRADIO

Powered by Blogger Pro™

Welcome to Sad Salvation. Day by day by day by day ... this is my attempt to make sense of the world.



Current | Archives


Friday, May 11, 2007


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 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.

Labels: , , , ,

 

Current | Archives

Contact me