7 ms·

The problem I have is that I can't really imagine the catalog subscription model to be feasible if any and all catalog entries were available to download withou

by Daiz 14y ago

The problem I have is that I can't really imagine the catalog subscription model to be feasible if any and all catalog entries were available to download without DRM. Someone with a fat pipe could just spend a month downloading absolutely everything, cutting the subscription and enjoying the goods for a long time to come, whereas the idea is that the user remains as a subscriber because of the limited time they have for consuming all the content. And while DRM is generally very inconvenient, there are also places where it's mostly "invisible" - Spotify and Netflix are pretty damn convenient on the whole, with pretty much the only major downside being the inability to watch stuff without an internet connection (though Spotify offers limited offline downloads for this reason too). The DRM in Steam is also generally quite invisible to the end-users, which is why people generally do not mind it - and also because Steam offers a lot more convenience with its service than what it takes away with its DRM. As I said, ideally I'd like to see digital stores that combine the catalog subscription model as well as individual DRM-free purchases. Think Netflix, except you could also buy the really good stuff that you like. This would allow you to download DRM-free copies in many formats whenever you want, they could also bundle purchases with stuff like extras, and best of all: since they have a streaming infrastructure in place already they could also offer unlimited streaming for bought titles, even if you don't have a subscription. I imagine it would make for quite the killer service. But if everything could be downloaded DRM-free with just the catalog subscription, the individual sales would not work, and subscriptions would probably have a terrible retention rate. Again, I just can't see the catalog subscription model working without at least some sort of "download prevention". I guess the biggest question is: Can we achieve that without the need for heavyweight black-box DRM schemes? I mean, you'd really just need to stop "casual" downloading - pirates will always find a way around protections, so they can't be stopped, but you'd just have to make sure a regular customer sees value in both the catalog subscription (which would be essentially renting) and individual title purchasing (actual buying).

TheCoelacanth 14y ago
Even with DRM, I wouldn't be subscribed to a service for long if it wasn't continually adding new content.
fzzzy 14y ago
"Download prevention" is impossible. The analog hole cannot be closed. If it can be delivered to our senses, then it can be copied.
mtrimpe 14y ago
The problem is that you'd need a fully locked-down chain, all the way from server to monitor, to be able to pull that off. Every single one of the devices in that chain has to be reduced to a black box which we're not allowed to tamper with. Hollywoord is trying hard to actually achieve that, and that is the scary part.
- recoiledsnake 14y ago
  Not really true, Hollywood just needs to make it inconvenient for casual users to make copies and give to their friends etc.
  - pdonis 14y ago
    Tell that to Hollywood. This may be all they actually need, but it's not all they're asking for, not by a long way.
incongruity 14y ago
Are you looking for a 100% solution? If so, you'll never find it. Instead, you need to think about how you make offerings cheap enough and compelling enough that a sufficient number of users will choose them over pirating. There will always be pirated content. However, thankfully, most people are also more or less honest and well-inentioned. The two balance out to a great degree. So what tips the balance is how you treat your customers – does it become painful to deal with your product because of all of the DRM? Do you treat consumers like criminals? Is it significantly less hassle to pirate than it is to buy/rent/view legally (and likely pay for)? If any of those are true, you will tip the balance away from a completely successful business model. Every business model has inefficiencies in the supply chain. Much of it falls under what's called "shrinkage". Sometimes it's from theft, other times it's from spoilage, weather, etc. The truth is, just like in heating, cooling, power production, engine design or anything else, you can never achieve 100% efficiency and in the case of consumer-facing products and services, I suggest you re-evaluate such pursuits before they ruin what otherwise would have been a profitable business model because you've alienated your customers.
- zanny 14y ago
  > Are you looking for a 100% solution? If so, you'll never find it. I dunno, getting paid to make information-based content (which includes anything you can stick on a hard drive) by the people that want the content, rather than by people who want to try to profit off its artificial scarcity, could probably be a 100% solution. Because then the information you have you can treat like anything else you own - you can share it, spread it, etc, without fear, and the content creator got paid by people that wanted it made. I mean, it would be a culture shift, but it is a 100% solution. Piracy doesn't matter if the point of profit isn't in per-goods sales but in goods creation, where the actual costs lie.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - tjcelaya 14y ago
    I'm having trouble understanding what you mean by people paying for the creation of goods by the people that want the content. The division between paying for DRM-free content and the creation of that content seems contrived unless you're saying that consumers would pay the content creators directly so that more content can be produced, but that would make it problematic for up and coming artists to break into the market. Don't take this as an argument, I'm just asking for clarification.
dreamdu5t 14y ago
I buy music on bandcamp all the time, yet I could pirate it. It's often more convenient. Can't explain that!
wnight 14y ago
> [But what if ...] Yeah, and it already happens. More-over, I go out of my way to give people SD cards full of textbooks, HDs full of books, etc, and even the odd hollywood movie here and there, to make it happen. So why not pull our heads of out the sand. After thousands of years of grubbing in the mud we've finally got the technology to give everyone a copy of everything worth knowing. So let's do it now, and reap the societal benefits, while thinking of how to reward the creators, instead of sitting and lamenting while it inevitably happens. The US constitution gave congress the ability to grant monopolies to encourage the public good; it didn't declare that this was the best method, or require it actually be used. The constitution should read "Congress is given the ability to encourage creation of knowledge, including the power to grant limited monopolies where necessary", instead of suggesting them as the go-to strategy.

by Daiz 14y ago

TheCoelacanth 14y ago

Even with DRM, I wouldn't be subscribed to a service for long if it wasn't continually adding new content.

fzzzy 14y ago

"Download prevention" is impossible. The analog hole cannot be closed. If it can be delivered to our senses, then it can be copied.

mtrimpe 14y ago

The problem is that you'd need a fully locked-down chain, all the way from server to monitor, to be able to pull that off. Every single one of the devices in that chain has to be reduced to a black box which we're not allowed to tamper with. Hollywoord is trying hard to actually achieve that, and that is the scary part.

recoiledsnake 14y ago
Not really true, Hollywood just needs to make it inconvenient for casual users to make copies and give to their friends etc.
- pdonis 14y ago
  Tell that to Hollywood. This may be all they actually need, but it's not all they're asking for, not by a long way.

incongruity 14y ago

Are you looking for a 100% solution? If so, you'll never find it. Instead, you need to think about how you make offerings cheap enough and compelling enough that a sufficient number of users will choose them over pirating. There will always be pirated content. However, thankfully, most people are also more or less honest and well-inentioned. The two balance out to a great degree. So what tips the balance is how you treat your customers – does it become painful to deal with your product because of all of the DRM? Do you treat consumers like criminals? Is it significantly less hassle to pirate than it is to buy/rent/view legally (and likely pay for)? If any of those are true, you will tip the balance away from a completely successful business model. Every business model has inefficiencies in the supply chain. Much of it falls under what's called "shrinkage". Sometimes it's from theft, other times it's from spoilage, weather, etc. The truth is, just like in heating, cooling, power production, engine design or anything else, you can never achieve 100% efficiency and in the case of consumer-facing products and services, I suggest you re-evaluate such pursuits before they ruin what otherwise would have been a profitable business model because you've alienated your customers.

zanny 14y ago
> Are you looking for a 100% solution? If so, you'll never find it. I dunno, getting paid to make information-based content (which includes anything you can stick on a hard drive) by the people that want the content, rather than by people who want to try to profit off its artificial scarcity, could probably be a 100% solution. Because then the information you have you can treat like anything else you own - you can share it, spread it, etc, without fear, and the content creator got paid by people that wanted it made. I mean, it would be a culture shift, but it is a 100% solution. Piracy doesn't matter if the point of profit isn't in per-goods sales but in goods creation, where the actual costs lie.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- tjcelaya 14y ago
  I'm having trouble understanding what you mean by people paying for the creation of goods by the people that want the content. The division between paying for DRM-free content and the creation of that content seems contrived unless you're saying that consumers would pay the content creators directly so that more content can be produced, but that would make it problematic for up and coming artists to break into the market. Don't take this as an argument, I'm just asking for clarification.

dreamdu5t 14y ago

I buy music on bandcamp all the time, yet I could pirate it. It's often more convenient. Can't explain that!

wnight 14y ago

> [But what if ...] Yeah, and it already happens. More-over, I go out of my way to give people SD cards full of textbooks, HDs full of books, etc, and even the odd hollywood movie here and there, to make it happen. So why not pull our heads of out the sand. After thousands of years of grubbing in the mud we've finally got the technology to give everyone a copy of everything worth knowing. So let's do it now, and reap the societal benefits, while thinking of how to reward the creators, instead of sitting and lamenting while it inevitably happens. The US constitution gave congress the ability to grant monopolies to encourage the public good; it didn't declare that this was the best method, or require it actually be used. The constitution should read "Congress is given the ability to encourage creation of knowledge, including the power to grant limited monopolies where necessary", instead of suggesting them as the go-to strategy.