It's this quote that tells me that the industry still doesn't get it:
Quote:
"The real reason for DRM is the notion that people will permanently own this content, and we're not convinced that for consumers, that the majority of video and TV content is going to be the kind of content consumers will want to permanently own."
Previous subscription models haven't taken off, but the future of video content won't likely be a traditional ownership model, which is at direct odds with the DVD-related industry.
|
As a consumer, when I pay money for content, there are basically 2 kinds of contracts that I enter in to:
1. Ownership
2. Rental
Ownership is forever (like getting a book or CD at the local store).
Rental is for a limited time (like NetFlix).
As a consumer, I expect to pay a great deal less to rent than to own.
The problem is that the entertainment industry expects consumers to pay the higher ownership price to get the rental contract.
No consumer wants this, of course. It's simply poor value.
Quote:
|
but the question I have is whether it's a genuine loosening of the DRM grip on content, or just an attempt to figure out how tight the grip can be without the market slipping through its fingers?
|
There's an old saying that goes like this:
If you drop a frog into a pot of boiling water, he will jump out immediately.
But if you drop a frog into room temp water, and slowly raise the heat, he will allow himself to be cooked to death.
This latest change in the DRM strategy seems only to be an attempt to "turn down the heat" until people get comfortable so they can slowly turn up the heat later.