Now come on, MikeM. Don't set me up by implicitly claiming I'm making this personal; I'm not. Your input here is TREMENDOUSLY valued, at least at my end of the copper pair.
I don't want you thinking that things are getting personal here, as that would be counter-productive to why we are all here. As I view it, we are here to discuss issues related to technology investments, and if the incidental benefit is a 1 or 2 bagger here or there, there is certainly no harm to one's wallet. I, for one, am not here to make things, or take things, personal. My previous post was in response to what appeared to be, IMHO, a somewhat emotional response. Though directed at my post, I certainly did not take it personal.
My principal comment was that, IMHO, content protection, meant any form thereof, ranging from: (1) encryption at the source, whether that mean onto a DVD, or encoded in the software situated on a video server ready for download, to (2) distribution, which you apparently have strong opinions on; (3) to protection at the user end, meaning encoding in the set-top box or PVR that attempt to limit the ability of the user to either (a) copy it from the medium on which the content is stored for duplication and/or mobility, or (b) limit the number of times the content may be viewed to dissuade the duplication & further distribution for one's own profit.
The key issue to this debate, as raised by several others here, is the right of the consumer, who pays for the right to view the content at his leisure, when he wants, how he wants vs. the ability of that consumer to potentially & illegally profit from possession of that content by duplication & re-distribution of that content for profit. The debate has also encompassed issues surrounding sites as Napster and Scour. As I have stated, the property rights at issue here are not the consumer vs. the entertainment industry, but the rights of the artist vs. the entertainment industry. IMHO, Napster has craftily made the latter the issue of its technology, and perhaps rightfully so.
I view this debate much as the debate of competition of along the last mile. Let'em fight it out amongst themselves. In the end, the victor will be the consumer. IOW, when this content debate is settled, the cost to the consumer will be less than it is today, and I think this is where your sentiments lie. You believe the entertainment industry, by virtue of its long-armed control of its content, artificially inflates to price of its content that the consumer must pay. It does so by stimulating demand by bogus advertising that in many cases misrepresents the character of the content after we finally fork over $15-20 to see it. I cannot disagree with this hypothesis. I, do believe, however, that as technology drives down the cost of distribution, and sites such as Napster pop up to compete with the industry's own instruments of distribution, so long as there is some creative talent backing such new avenues of distribution, there is hope that competitive forces that represent artistic talent will force the established entertainment industry to compete for the consumer's dollar, thereby be forced to reduce its profit margins, and layoff the hundreds of executives I'm sure you detest.
The studio concept is always continually undergoing change. And I am of the opinion that the next round of change is going to be significant because of the Internet and the broadband digital infrastructure now being constructed. You may eventually see your wishes come true, but its going to take some time.
JMO. |
