Linked by alcibiades on Tue 30th May 2006 20:40 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 129344
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: misses whole point of WSJ piece
by kaiwai on Thu 1st Jun 2006 02:46
in reply to "RE[3]: misses whole point of WSJ piece"




Member since:
2005-07-11
Agreed. With the exception of DVDs, where the protection scheme is trivial to circumvent and there exists no other alternative, I personally refuse to purchase DRMed media. While I find it heartening that eMusic is doing as well as it apparently is, I think it's highly unlikely that major content cartels will agree to such a distribution scheme anytime in the near future (although that might be their eventual undoing).
Also, while I'm kinda reflexively opposed to DRM, I must say that I have a hard time seeing anything inherently wrong with rental models such as the ones currently used by Napster and Real. The price is still too high for what you get in my view (not to mention that their services aren't available on my operating system of choice), but the model itself seems basically fair to me. If Netflix were to sell a closed piece of hardware and corresponding service which downloaded DVD quality video from the internet and allowed me to select from among their entire catalog (essentially changing their turnaround time from 48 hours to 4 hours), I'd be very tempted even if the device was heavily locked down and limited to playing the content on a single display.