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.
|
This, to me, is an incredibly silly statement, an indication that this is the worst kind of corporate justification for figuring out new ways to charge consumers for things they already own.
I have cases and shelves of movies and TV series, on video and DVD, just like a fair number of the people in this country, entertainment material bought and paid for, and watched often. These include four out of five
Star Trek series,
The Prisoner,
UFO,
Firefly,
The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr,
The Avengers (Emma Peel years),
Fawlty Towers and
Absolutely Fabulous, and episodes of anime series like
Bubblegum Crisis and
Ghost In The Shell.
Most of these TV series, for example, are not being played on television... I don't care how many channels you have on cable or dish. A lot of the movies I own are also not played on TV, or if they are, they are "edited for content and language and
length," and often not worth watching. I consider this content to have value, so, since I cannot enjoy it on television, I BUY THEM, and watch them when and how I like.
And don't be fooled by the language... they WANT you to buy. They just also want you to pay for every subsequent copy you make, before they figure out how to make you pay for every viewing of it. Then they'll figure out how to have that content self-destruct after a period of time or a number of viewings, forcing you to BUY IT again. Disney tried that ingenious marketing method... and they were forced by consumer backlash to eat those DVDs.
Me? I'm warming up my backlasher.