3 ms·

How can the "lazy big media companies" adapt? What's the DRM-free business model that would allow them to produce the blockbuster movies that are apparently st

by kvb 13y ago

How can the "lazy big media companies" adapt? What's the DRM-free business model that would allow them to produce the blockbuster movies that are apparently still quite popular with the public?

kevingadd 13y ago
You're assuming that blockbuster movies are a business model that will continue to work in the future. That's highly questionable - in the game industry developers and publishers are being forced to accept the possibility that the blockbuster model is no longer going to be a reliable source of revenue or the right way to develop things. I won't claim to know enough to say whether this is true for film or television, but it is at least reasonable to ask 'maybe the reason these products require fragile, overcomplicated DRM solutions is because we're building the wrong products'. I hate to use this analogy, but this really seems like a potential buggy-whip situation: It's quite possible that the content Big Media is producing is simply no longer relevant, even if the lack of relevance is due to changes in how people consume media and not because people are somehow no longer interested in explosions or big-name actors.
- cromwellian 13y ago
  Possible, I'll buy that. Maybe YouTube will one day kill off the major networks and studios, and production will get cheap, just like startups have gotten a lot cheaper to run with EC2. But I'm still going to go see Iron Man 3 and Star Trek Into Darkness and I'm not holding my breath that a non-DRM version will be cooked up outside the blockbuster system anytime soon. :)
  - kybernetikos 13y ago
    Is there any doubt that Star Trek Into Darkness could raise an unspeakably large amount of money on a crowdfunding platform? It looked very much like fans of Firefly would have been able to raise enough to continue making the series but they were given not very subtle hints than getting involved in a crowdfunded production would have been bad for the showbiz careers of those involved.
cantankerous 13y ago
This. While I don't like DRM, I feel like this boxing out of DRM-using media companies is pointless. Consumers continue to subscribe to media sources they find convenient and many use DRM. This may not last forever, but I'm inclined to vote bring all these people into the fold on the modern web so it's a place for everyone. Nobody's forcing anybody to use DRM.
- kevingadd 13y ago
  I think the point is more nuanced than that. It's not that DRM doesn't belong on the web, but it doesn't belong as an integral part of the web and web components. There are already well-specified mechanisms like <object> and NPAPI/ActiveX plugins that you can use right now to ship encrypted video if you want. The cost of every single feature added to the Standard Web is tremendous and we pay that cost forever. By that standard alone, adding a feature like DRM video to serve the demands of an enormous, incredibly powerful, incredibly rich lobby is ridiculous. There are simply much better problems to be solved with less downsides. So, to try and rephrase it: The question here isn't whether these people should be 'brought into the fold' on the modern web; DRM is intrinsically at odds with the modern web (and the web we've had before), both in concrete purpose and in the more nebulous philosophical ways. A major strength of the web has always been its ability to open doors and put powerful tools in the hands of everyone, and encrypted/protected video limited to certain platforms/devices just fundamentally runs counter to all of that.
_pmf_ 13y ago
> What's the DRM-free business model that would allow them to produce the blockbuster movies that are apparently still quite popular with the public? That's something they have to care about, not I. I have the right to say "fuck you" and not give a shit about their business model. They had ample time to at least make a feeble try to start adapting, but so far this has not happened. I see a "blockbuster" movie about twice a year and could not care less if the typical Hollywood drivel completely stops.
- progrock 13y ago
  Not to mention the dross is gumming up the tubes! Having said that, this is more a question of content delivery than the actual content.
voyou 13y ago
"What's the DRM-free business model that would allow them to produce the blockbuster movies" It's the same as the DRM-encumbered business model: make movies and charge people to watch them. DRM doesn't make that model any more or less effective.
- anoncow 13y ago
  This. They already have legal options to protect their IP. If they still want to use DRM, continue using plugins. Why include DRM in html5 and potentially alienate open source operating systems? Why use html5 to help sell more windows/osx copies? Why use html5 to promote vendor lock-in? Are copyright laws not enough protection?

by kvb 13y ago

How can the "lazy big media companies" adapt? What's the DRM-free business model that would allow them to produce the blockbuster movies that are apparently still quite popular with the public?

kevingadd 13y ago

You're assuming that blockbuster movies are a business model that will continue to work in the future. That's highly questionable - in the game industry developers and publishers are being forced to accept the possibility that the blockbuster model is no longer going to be a reliable source of revenue or the right way to develop things. I won't claim to know enough to say whether this is true for film or television, but it is at least reasonable to ask 'maybe the reason these products require fragile, overcomplicated DRM solutions is because we're building the wrong products'. I hate to use this analogy, but this really seems like a potential buggy-whip situation: It's quite possible that the content Big Media is producing is simply no longer relevant, even if the lack of relevance is due to changes in how people consume media and not because people are somehow no longer interested in explosions or big-name actors.

cromwellian 13y ago
Possible, I'll buy that. Maybe YouTube will one day kill off the major networks and studios, and production will get cheap, just like startups have gotten a lot cheaper to run with EC2. But I'm still going to go see Iron Man 3 and Star Trek Into Darkness and I'm not holding my breath that a non-DRM version will be cooked up outside the blockbuster system anytime soon. :)
- kybernetikos 13y ago
  Is there any doubt that Star Trek Into Darkness could raise an unspeakably large amount of money on a crowdfunding platform? It looked very much like fans of Firefly would have been able to raise enough to continue making the series but they were given not very subtle hints than getting involved in a crowdfunded production would have been bad for the showbiz careers of those involved.

cantankerous 13y ago

This. While I don't like DRM, I feel like this boxing out of DRM-using media companies is pointless. Consumers continue to subscribe to media sources they find convenient and many use DRM. This may not last forever, but I'm inclined to vote bring all these people into the fold on the modern web so it's a place for everyone. Nobody's forcing anybody to use DRM.

kevingadd 13y ago
I think the point is more nuanced than that. It's not that DRM doesn't belong on the web, but it doesn't belong as an integral part of the web and web components. There are already well-specified mechanisms like <object> and NPAPI/ActiveX plugins that you can use right now to ship encrypted video if you want. The cost of every single feature added to the Standard Web is tremendous and we pay that cost forever. By that standard alone, adding a feature like DRM video to serve the demands of an enormous, incredibly powerful, incredibly rich lobby is ridiculous. There are simply much better problems to be solved with less downsides. So, to try and rephrase it: The question here isn't whether these people should be 'brought into the fold' on the modern web; DRM is intrinsically at odds with the modern web (and the web we've had before), both in concrete purpose and in the more nebulous philosophical ways. A major strength of the web has always been its ability to open doors and put powerful tools in the hands of everyone, and encrypted/protected video limited to certain platforms/devices just fundamentally runs counter to all of that.

_pmf_ 13y ago

> What's the DRM-free business model that would allow them to produce the blockbuster movies that are apparently still quite popular with the public? That's something they have to care about, not I. I have the right to say "fuck you" and not give a shit about their business model. They had ample time to at least make a feeble try to start adapting, but so far this has not happened. I see a "blockbuster" movie about twice a year and could not care less if the typical Hollywood drivel completely stops.

progrock 13y ago
Not to mention the dross is gumming up the tubes! Having said that, this is more a question of content delivery than the actual content.

voyou 13y ago

"What's the DRM-free business model that would allow them to produce the blockbuster movies" It's the same as the DRM-encumbered business model: make movies and charge people to watch them. DRM doesn't make that model any more or less effective.

anoncow 13y ago
This. They already have legal options to protect their IP. If they still want to use DRM, continue using plugins. Why include DRM in html5 and potentially alienate open source operating systems? Why use html5 to help sell more windows/osx copies? Why use html5 to promote vendor lock-in? Are copyright laws not enough protection?