Re: We didn't need all that DRM after all??

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

________________________________________
From: Adam Tagert [atagert () andrew cmu edu]
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 9:46 AM
To: David Farber
Subject: RE: [IP] Re:   We didn't need all that DRM after all??

Youtube isn't DRMed with a proprietary format.  The easiest way to save a
youtube video clip, or a video slip from many websites, is to have Real
Player installed.  I wouldn't call Real Networks a questionable source.  If
you don't want to have any software installed, then there several websites,
keepvid.com, www.videodl.org for example, that provide a direct download
link to the video. The format saved from youtube is none other than FLV,
which is a flash video file.  There are quite a few media players that can
play it, even if Microsoft Media Player cannot.

As to providing a download link,  the only service I have seen that does
provide one is vimeo.

Adam

-----Original Message-----
From: David Farber [mailto:dave () farber net]
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 9:25 AM
To: ip
Subject: [IP] Re: We didn't need all that DRM after all??


________________________________________
From: Peter Wayner [pcw () flyzone com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 3:36 PM
To: David Farber; bob37-2 () bobf frankston com
Subject: Re: [IP] We didn't need all that DRM after all??

I'm not sure I follow this. How are Hulu or YouTube not DRMed? There's very
little practical difference between a proprietary format and some encryption
that calls itself DRM.

 I don't remember seeing a "download DIVX file" button on their site. It is
possible to save copies of the video with special software from questionable
sources, but I don't see either Hulu or YouTube heading toward embracing
wide open file sharing or P2P.

Plus, I wouldn't celebrate this as a market success yet. Google is
reportedly losing a bundle on YouTube. Plus, it loses more as traffic goes
up:

http://www.alleyinsider.com/2008/7/google-we-can-t-figure-out-how-to-make-mo
ney-on-web-video-either

Even Google can't continue to subsidize this forever.

-Peter

On Jul 29, 2008, at 10:53 AM, David Farber wrote:

Let's pause - putting aside all this argument over traffic management there
is a far bigger implication - a marketplace solution in place of DRM. You
don't have to treat your users as criminals through DRM schemes with a huge
amount of collateral damage - you can offer them a better product by some
measure. Being able to go to a trusted site with a simple interface actually
works. Sure, you have to be competitive and price is a factor but far better
to compete than use DRM to cripple key technologies.

Without DRM think of how much more value we can find in current content. You
can use your PC in lieu of the set top box and redistributed it to your
viewing surface. You needn't be limited to 1995 HDTV while also having the
option of viewing on small screens or simply innovating.

While there is fear that there won't be enough critical mass but the long
tail phenomenon doesn't mean people won't choose to cluster around whatever
happens to be popular - that's a social effect and not necessarily a result
of marketplace constrictions.


DRM is the face of fear and locks us firmly in the past and leaves us unable
to create new value - a very stupid policy these days. Perhaps I'm being
overoptimistic but fighting the future mustn't be our primarily policy.

And the same goes for cable franchising rules that force us to spend
billions on silos that cause so much collateral damage.



-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com





-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com