read the article here: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/6c6aa286-7f08-11db-b193-0000779e2340.html
According to the Financial Times, many major movie studios in talks with Apple about making their movies available on the iTunes Store are pushing Apple to redesign their business model, limit the number of devices that can play the movies, and other anti-consumer (under the guise of anti-piracy) concessions.
After months of discussion, a sticking point has emerged over the studios’ demand that Apple limit the number of devices that can use a film downloaded from iTunes.
[ I have a number of complaints, some about the article, and others about the situation. ]
I take issue with articles that make ridicules claims as if they're facts. By that, i mean that the article claims the music industry hasn't "recovered from years of piracy" there is absolutely NO empirical evidence that could back up a claim like that. In fact, there is a good amount of evidence that the music industry actually benefits from the piracy, but they blame their failing business model and dropping profits on a pretty convenient little piracy scapegoat.
The article also mentions that the movie industry want's Apple to "limit the number of devices that can use a film downloaded from iTunes" but totally fails to mention that Apple already limits how many computers can play a film to just 5. They are specifically asking apple to further complicate the process (decidedly un-Apple-like) by limiting the portable devices that can use a film. (which is only the 2 most expensive iPod models.)
At this point, a movie can be loaded on to as many iPods as one likes, but once on the iPod, they cannot come off. Even if you manage to trick the computer into letting you copy the movie off the ipod and onto the computer, it will not play unless that computer is one of the 5 authorized computers for the account. That sounds like a perfectly reasonable situation to me, but we all know that the phrase "Perfectly Reasonable," to the music or movie industries, might as well be "One more spot we can screw the consumer for another few dollars."
Wal-Mart, the largest US retailer, is entering the nascent market, challenging Amazon and Apple with a different model that ties digital downloads to the sale of DVDs.
An "Extra Payment"? Whatever happened to Fair Use? expecting me to pay full price to play a DVD on my TV, and then expecting me to pay again for the same movie so that i can watch it on my iPod... that's just absurd.
Why dont they just tie every DVD i buy to the first DVD player i play it in so that if i want to watch it in the livingroom i have to buy it again, and if i want to watch it in my bedroom later, i'll buy another copy. And should i ever need to replace my DVD player, i would then be expected to re-purchase all of my DVD collection.
Here's an even better idea: Tie the DVD purchases to a specific time. Charge full price for them, of course, but make them playable only during a specific time of the day and time of the year.
"Sorry, this DVD will only play from 8pm until 10pm on thursdays, in december. if you would like to watch this movie at any other time of the day, week or year, please go out and purchase it again, at full price. You'd only have to buy it about 1,095 times before you own all time copies and can watch it whenever you want! Please keep in mind, though, that you can only watch them on this TV, and if you would like to watch it at a friends house, you will need to purchase another 1,095 copies of the DVD."
How much revenue is the movie industry just throwing out the window by letting the stupid consumers choose when they watch the movies they purchase? They would be
I cant wait for that day. What a magical time it will be.
|comments: Leave a comment|