Movie Download Sites Fail Because They Don't Have Enough DRM?
from the you-lost-us-there dept
Some company says it’s come up with a way to implement CSS copy protection on films from movie-download services, and heralds it as a move that will give a significant boost to the sites since it could allow consumers to burn movies they download to DVD — assuming, of course, they have a DVD burner that supports the “feature”. It’s hard to know where to start with this, but the idea that movie download sites need more DRM is as good a place as any. Probably the biggest problem these sites have is the fact that all the DRM and copy protection that’s been added to appease the movie studios make them ridiculously cumbersome, not least of which when it comes to burning movies to DVD so they can be watched on users’ TV sets. But perhaps the most stupefying aspect of this plan is that CSS is pretty useless as a copy protection method, since it was cracked years ago by DVD Jon. CSS doesn’t really stop anybody from copying movies, since so many tools exist that allow people to easily circumvent it. Of course, that’s still largely irrelevant, since all these movies are ending up on file-sharing services already, and slapping more copy protection on legitimate movie downloads won’t stop that. Only in Hollywood is finding a way to add more DRM to a product a good idea, especially when it’s DRM that doesn’t even work. All of these movie-download sites are operating under Hollywood’s false assumption that releasing digital products without copy protection will increase piracy. But that simply isn’t the case, and the way to “compete with free” isn’t by locking legitimate products down so they’re ridiculously restricted and hard to use.
Comments on “Movie Download Sites Fail Because They Don't Have Enough DRM?”
Consumers aren't stupid enough
Consumers can be boneheads at times, but apparently we aren’t dumb enough to buy movies that are impossible to use and cost more than ones we can buy at Walmart.
I guess we need to dumb down the schools more so these places can succeed with their “let charge more for a movie that we don’t have to burn to DVD, print packaging for, and ship. People will buy that! It is working so well for ebooks, right?” business model.
Oh yeah. FIRST!
Download DRM
Allow me to watch it where I wish and charge me 5 bucks and I will be buying lots of movies.
I hit the dvd bin at walmart for cheep movies all the time.
a simple question....
So, I read through all the links attached to this article, especially the one about “competing with free”. My question is simple, can techDirt show companies that are as successful (scaled appropriately) using the business model they propose (no DRM, using free stuff as a means to induce sales, etc) versus more traditional business models. I always here people saying how great the model is and plenty of people have written on it, but are there long term SUSTAINABLE and REAL companies doing it now?
Re: a simple question....
I take it you don’t read techdirt much. Its been stated many times that eMusic sells music without any drm on them. You can take the mp3 to any device you want. From their press release last month….
eMUSIC SELLS 100 MILLION DOWNLOADS;
CATALOGUE SURPASSES 2 MILLION TRACKS
(sorry for the caps I cut n pasted)
Re: Re: a simple question....
Actually, I read and comment on techDirt quite a bit. The problem is that searching the site and googling for “no drm” the only place I could find was eMusic. If 1 example is all there is then I would be a bit concerned. Also, in this case, I read an interview with the CEO of the company and basically he admitted is that a lot of the reason for his success is that he is:
a) the only alternative to iTunes and much of his success lies in the success of iPod sales (no one else can produce DRM songs for it so MP3 is the only solution).
b) much of his companies success lies in the fact that they specialize in fringe products like older stuff, classical music, and indie tracks that aren’t represented in iTurnes.
(and given these points they still only represent 16% or so of sales, according to them. By the logic presented here people should be going to this site in droves, not in trickles)
So yes, eMusic would definately be an example but could the market even support more than 1 eMusics as it seems to be working as a parasite of iTunes/iPod?
Actually, this is partly my error in that I should have specified other than eMusic and more than 1 example (if it exists). My basic point is that if the model is so good there should at least be a handful of companies out there making buku bucks, but there doesn’t seem to be, and as it is always said “the purpose of business is to generate profit”
Re: Re: Re: a simple question....
My basic point is that if the model is so good there should at least be a handful of companies out there making buku bucks, but there doesn’t seem to be, and as it is always said “the purpose of business is to generate profit”
Finding good or “popular” content to provide without DRM is much harder than you think. Who owns the content? BINGO! Hollywood and the recording industry: the proponents of DRM.
I think it would be safe to say (IMO) that the people who buy media with DRM are not buying it because of the fact that it has DRM but because there is no alternative.
Artists and content owners can still make money without DRM. Why? Because DRM DOES NOT STOP PIRACY! It only creates problems and bad experiences for everyone who wants to do more with their purchased media than listen to it in their cd player or watch it 3 times on their pc.
I bought a DVD. I want the ability to watch it in my home, on my pc and on my portable media player of choice without paying for it three times.
Re: Re: Re: a simple question....
Id say that a 16% market share for a company that primarily sells “fringe” products is ample indication that the business model works.
Re: Re: Re:2 a simple question....
Like I said, more than 1 example would be nice since on techDirt this business model is held up as what should be the end goal of all businesses. As I said, eMusic is an example but how many smart corporations are willing to change to a business model with only 1 success?
I am sorry for being so beligerent but as an engineer the first thing we are taught is the scientific method, one of it’s major tenants being reproducability.
I dunno, maybe the arguement can also be made that it’s too early for more than 1 or 2 concrete examples, but I would like someone more learned than I to make that case.
Re: Re: Re:3 a simple question....
From my reading of the situation the legality of AllofMP3.com is not suspect at all, it is solid and unchallenged. However, whether this remains the case in the coming WTO negotiations is questionable. It depends on the pressure of Hollywood, but don’t assume that Hollywood can hold the negotiations to ransom, everyone wants to see Russia in and I wouldn’t be surprised if the USA retreat if the Russians stand firm.
“Aside from the youTube “everyone is an artist” model, where will high production value stuff consistently come from when all the deep pockets of the record and music industry go away?”
This is the real question, yes.
One could take a free market capitalists view and say, “No worries.. the demand is there, the market will sort it out, and if the demand is not there, then what the hell anyway, that’s economics for you”
This works for me as an art lover. There is an abundance of poor quality material in circulation and thinning out the pool might raise quality again. Film production will have to become more efficient. Wages will have to go down, including the outrageous salaries of actors. Producers, actors and artists will have to work because they love that career, not because it is a way to get extrememly rich. I am not pessimistic about the prospects of Hollywood going to the wall – there will still be great films made and culture will move on in its own way.
Re: Re: Re:4 a simple question....
I agree. Good insight.
Re: Re: Re:5 a simple question....
Everytime I leave my home, I lock my doors even though my house has over 15 windows on the first floor alone. Why? It only really inconveniences me and my family. Honest people wouldn’t enter my home if the door was unlocked. Thieves break a window and take my TV at-will. Why should I bother? Do you bother? Probably you do. The lock isn’t foolproof. It likely only inconveniences those who wouldn’t work to break it anyway. Yet we all lock our doors. We all take our keys from the car when run into the mall. The fact is theft occurs all over the place despite our best efforts. That is not a reason not to make every effort to protect what is yours, even though it inconveniences you, your family, and non-criminal others. Ergo, DRM. It is here to stay. Better than fighting to make it disappear is to fight to make it better and less inconvenient to use.
Re: Re: Re:6 a simple question.
Better than fighting to make it disappear is to fight to make it better and less inconvenient to use.
See.. the flaw in your thinking is this… the PURPOSE of DRM is to make it so inconvenient you buy the same content repeatedly. NOT to prevent piracy.
DRM in your house lock analogy is allowing a locksmith to enter your house, put a lock inbetween every room in it, and then having a third party decide at the point of entry whether or not you should be allowed into the room.
Re: Re: Re:3 a simple question....
Then as an engineer you should be thinking more critically than you are.
If all (or almost all) consumer-desired content is owned by those who would have DRM thrust upon those who wish to view it then it becomes virtually impossible for any of these ‘examples’ to become reality. Too early too tell my ass. The fact is that these business cannot generally get started because they are under the iron gavel of the industry (**AA’s).
This is a no-brainer. Which product would you choose:
Product A that you have to pay for every time you switch devices or Product B that costs the same as product A but can be moved from device to device?
It isn’t a genius concept so what’s you’re deal?
If you want more concrete examples of the business model, fight against the overlords who hold all the keys to the ability to create them? eMusic can do it cause it has a nitch market, but main stream can’t because they’re controlled from the top.
Who taught you critical thinking anyway?
Re: Re: Re:3 a simple question....
Like I said, more than 1 example would be nice since on techDirt this business model is held up as what should be the end goal of all businesses.
No. You have misinterpreted our stance.
Our point is not that it should be the end goal, but that it’s where the economics will lead to in an efficient market — and that it will present many more opportunities to profit for those who get there.
However, claiming that it’s bogus because there aren’t enough examples means that you haven’t been paying attention to how the business works. The reason there aren’t many successful examples yet is because the industry still hasn’t figured out where the market is heading.
But they will. Just keep watching.
Re: a simple question....
it’s not a question of if media companies can sustain free downloads or not. it’s all out there for free right now. everyone is doing it and that is how it will be done from here on out. the media companies need to find a way to compete with that, or they need to dry up an blow away and make room for companies that can.
Re: Re: a simple question....
I think you are 110% correct in stating that that everyone is downloading for free now but I don’t agree with those who say there is a way to compete with that in all cases. Sure, for some products, but my major concern is that the internet has created a cultural paradigm in which taking someones work without paying for it is not only accepted, people actually fight to do it as though it were a right.
I’m looking into my crystal ball and the future looks kind of murky. What happens as traditional media companies really start to get hit in the bottom line and have to start packing up shop? Aside from distribution the other thing that these companies, especially movie companies, did was actually front the bill for production of content. Aside from the youTube “everyone is an artist” model, where will high production value stuff consistently come from when all the deep pockets of the record and music industry go away?
I agree with everyone that the current implementation of DRM is flawed, but the alternatives I’ve heard proposed are not sustainable for the larger industry, especially those segments that not only distribute but also produce content. Companies like eMusic can survive because they are not content generators, just distributors.
So, in a sense, I can see where RIAA and MPAA companies would be extremely reticient to adopt technologies like this because there is such a culture prevailing on the internet that it is OK to download and redistribute files without purchasing them, and I don’t see people magically paying for something that they can get for free. I’m not offering a solution, because I really don’t have one, except that maybe trying to stop file sharing is like the war on drugs, a battle that should be fought because it is an ethical problem, but a war that is bound to be lost in the long term. Then what will be left, downloading videos of little Johnny burping the star spangled banner? Hey, that actually sounds kine of funny…
Re: Re: Re: a simple question....
where will high production value stuff consistently come from when all the deep pockets of the record and music industry go away?
you mean high production cost stuff. the costs that go into something and the value that comes out are vastly different, and not often related to eachother. just cuz you spent $200 million to make a turd, doesn’t automatically make that turd valuable.
in the 90’s hollywood stopped being a place where people took chances to produce things of value and became an investment bank. art is about sacrificing to create something, investors don’t sacrifice. investors want guaranteed success.
how do you guarantee success? by following a formula. take a firmly established genre, a big name star, maybe a bigshot director… and you have a bunchof big egos that translate to big costs and not much variety. will the movie be a success? well if you cut corners on the writing or rush the production because you spent so much money on the actors and special effects, then no, it probably won’t be a success.
the same is true for music. ground breaking artists are a thing of the past. it’s all about grinding out trendy crap with no staying power.
Re: Re: Re:2 a simple question....
Amen brother – fo sure
Re: a simple question....
Yes. Baen Publishing, http://www.baen.com Has a Free Library http://www.baen.com/library/ with current first-line books for download. (html, rocket,rtf, etc. – no drm at all)They also have webscriptions, http://www.webscriptions.net where you can buy andvance reader copies and individual books for download, (html, rocket, rtf, etc. – no drm at all) cheaper then buying the dead-tree version, and before the publish date for the impatient, since 2000 or so – and they’re doing quite well.
–Robb
uh...retard!
ok, so if it comes with CSS and is able to be burned freely, couldnt someone just burn, say, 10,000 copies and sell them for $5 each or so? This would work great in countries where copyrights aren’t enforced as much.
> can techDirt show companies that are as successful (scaled appropriately)
> using the business model they propose (no DRM, using free stuff as a means to induce sales, etc) versus more traditional business models.
allofmp3.com ?
Re: Re:
Sure, but aren’t they being sued by the RIAA for copyright infringement? They basically take CDs and make MP3s out of them without permission, how is that different than piracy? I’m talking about legitimate legal companies.
Re: Re: Re:
Allofmp3.com is a legitimate legal company in the country they operate in. Why do people have such a hard time understanding that American law is not international law. The only reason there are not tons of sites selling music and movies is because the RIAA and MPAA refuse to sell anything without drm. You wanted a reason you got one. Anybody could make a ton if they would simply let go of the stranglehold on movies and music. Just let people sell them with no DRM and sales would go through the roof. I would actually start buying movies again instead of copying the rentals like I do know.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, other than “it’s the right thing to do” why would you stop copying rentals? The only reason I could think of is that if they were cheaper than buying the DRM free version. My larger question, still, is if someone is used to using BitTorrent or Morpheus or something to get movies FOR FREE, why would they start buying them (unless they were no longer on BitTorrent or Morpheus, which isn’t going to happen). Seems almost counterintuitive.
Actuially, you might want to take a look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AllOfMP3.com_legality
Currently the Russian government is moving forward with charges against allofmp3 and their “legality” is suspect at best. Most countries have provisions that say you can’t get copyrighted material from a website without the permission of the copyright holder to distribute it.
Also, you may want to look up allegations that allofmp3 was basically a front for a spamming operation.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
My larger question, still, is if someone is used to using BitTorrent or Morpheus or something to get movies FOR FREE, why would they start buying them (unless they were no longer on BitTorrent or Morpheus, which isn’t going to happen). Seems almost counterintuitive.
I can offer my answer to this, I use utorrent now cause I’m sick and tired of 1) buying a dvd and 6 months later they come out with another version of “Special edition” (They did this for Underworld 1 and Almost Famous) 2) The reason people would be it when they can get it for free is the packaging. Of the movies I’ve copied I’ve bought a legal copy because I was no longer worried about reason #1.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
I am surprised the RIAA hasn’t accused them of nuclear terrorism, much less spam. Are you kidding? The RIAA is so pissed at allofmp3, they even brought it to the WTO.
Anyone who believes the RIAA deserves them.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Basing arguments on items in Wikipedia which are clasified as Cleanup from January 2007 | Wikipedia articles needing clarification | Articles with unsourced statements | Pages needing expert attention from Law experts, is probably not the best basis for an argument.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
So, other than “it’s the right thing to do” why would you stop copying rentals?
cuz it takes so freaking long. you have to wait for the disc to arrive. watch it to see if it’s worth copying. rip it and then burn it or transcode it. if you are renting them from the store, it will take even longer.
if the kids that sold bootlegs on the street corner bothered to sell dvd rips or transcodes of older movies i would just buy from them instead of making them myself. but the street corner kids don’t have the selection that netflix has.
i could try to find the transcodes or ISOs on bittorrent, but like the street forner kids, it’s mostly new stuff that they have.
hmm, that sounds like a business opportunity in the making… someone should do that (netflix, i’m looking at you)
if you are into transcodes (divx/xvid), there is also the issue of playing it on a TV. that means that you need to build/buy an HTPC or mod a console to do that. that’s fine for me, but my mom could never do that. a prebuilt box with a search and buy button is what she would need.
wow, that sounds like a business opportunity in the making… someone like microsoft should get on that (apple, i’m looking at you).
if netflix sold divX’s already made and DRM free, i would just buy those… or i would pay netflix a monthly fee so i could use their search and recommendation system to find the stuff i wanted to download.
i could download what i want, keep the things i like and delete the stuff that’s disappointing. like tivo, only better.
even if i downloaded constantly, it would take me years to build up a good library, even if i was trading stuff with my friends and vice versa.
it needs to be DRM free so i can play it on new/additional players as i acquire them… like when i run myself out of disk space for the second time in a year or get enough cash to put a HTPC in my car.
hmm, that’s a business opportunity in the making, someone should get on that (alpine, i’m looking at you)
all that just for movies… imagine the opportunities for TV.
Re: Re: Re:
American companies could do that too, if the RIAA would deal with them. Yes, the prices would be higher. Give it a shot and see–it hasnt been done yet. No, theres no proof, but use your imagination: a certain proportion of allofmp3 users were there for the price, and a certain proportion for the no-drm.
protection scammers
It’s nice to know there is hard evidence that DRM and copy protection have no effect on sales other than to inhibit them as users run into problems. We all knew that would happen and nobody is very surprised. But why do the content producers keep buying into these flawed schemes? I still say that the “security” companies are to blame. There are a lot of emerging companies that trade entirely on fear, uncertainty and doubt. Their snakeoil salesmen make an easy killing selling to content producers who still beleive their bottom line is undermined by piracy. They are the legitimate side of protection rackets really. “Shame if anything might happen to your nice media.”
Not more DRM, compatible DRM
I don’t like DRM but what really matters to me is whether I can access my content when I want where I want. Movie download services to date have been flawed by the use of *highly restrictive* and *incompatible* DRM. Switching to CSS as the DRM would allow the downloaded movie to be played anywhere a CSS encoded DVD can be played. This would meet my needs. Distributing the movie without DRM would also meet my needs and as you point out, any movie I can buy or rent, I can also get via file sharing. But most consumer can’t and don’t get these movies via file sharing. The benefit to the distributor of including CSS is that average Joe doesn’t give a copy to every member of his family but he can still watch it where ever he wants. Its not a bad compromise.
I just went to Amazon’s movie download area to check it out. The movies I wanted to download were $16 to download. WTF? Why would anyone pay $16 to download a movie? For that price, I want a handjob from the leading lady too.
i dont see it as the end goal, i just think they should be trying new models, i mean isnt innovation important for keeping on the edge? but thats not likely to happen. The old guard doesnt like change.
if it's easier that searching for a torrent...
…. Joe Public will buy into this idea, flawed as it is.
Searching for a torrent of a movie often leads you into a mire of porn and malware. When you find the movie it’s often an esoteric format that needs a strange codec pack that wants to reset your browser homepage….
While a reasonably tech savvy user will work through these problems (to watch a downgraded, downsampled version of the movie) Joe Public (and me on a day where I don’t have time to spend fighting this stuff) wants to get home, turn on the tube, grab a beer and watch a movie.
If it’s one-click and instant-on it’s going to get traction as long as they don’t price themselves out of the market. Folks don’t often factor in the Cable cost (especially on an all-you-can-eat package) and do a cost analysis of download vs packaged… their value proposition is watching the movie.
For me renting a first run, advert free, DVD quality experience through my Xbox Live Marketplace, getting the movie from Netflix or buying from Amazon are easy and so I do that.
Sometimes there’s a rare movie or missed TV ep I can’t find and I will search the backwaters for it but I’m time poor and so the easiest option wins most times…
just a note — the company involved here is Sonic Solutions, one of the 500 lb gorillas of the disc pressing/DVD burning software/hardware industry. Without going into the why or why nots of DRM, this isn’t some company with a get rich scheme. These people know this market very well, and I’d be curious to hear their take on this.
DRMBytes
The simple fact here is this, DRM technologies are a limitation in the way music can be shared, as long as that exists people will continue pirating it.
I buy all my music on iTunes, mostly because they use mp4 instead of the old & pathetic mp3 format, if other companies offered this without DRM I would migrate over to them.
Solutions are easy, RIAA and the other Record Companies complaining of this will soon meet their ends, after-all this industry has been holding onto a fantasy, that artists who sing deserve mucho dollars for it. All they do is make sound out of their extremely annoying mouths, it’s not worth even 1 cent to hear, they should be paying us for listening! I look forward to the day all record labels die an the companies go out of business, it will be hilarious to watch.
LOL
Carlo,
Congrats, this has to be the “Best blog post title of the Year”. Had me laughing out loud 🙂
The DRM issues of the movie industry are unfortunately similar to those in music: the majors are scared to the bone of piracy and hold on to DRM as an unfortunate lesser evil, while the smaller distributors are more than happy to gor DRM-less as they can see more clearly the increase in market visibility and reach.
To make matters worse, in the movie industry there is still a lot of uncertainty as to what the right delivery windows should be for each format.
The digital world is used to getting all information/entertainment almost instantly, but in the movie world theaters still hold a strong bargaining chip.
Change will come, albeit slowly. Hopefully 2007 will be the year when the music industry gives up on DRM. The movie industry will still need more time to wake up to the digital reality.
Basing arguments on items in Wikipedia which are clasified as Cleanup from January 2007 | Wikipedia articles needing clarification | Articles with unsourced statements | Pages needing expert attention from Law experts, is probably not the best basis for an argument.