A Coincidence to far?
I find it interesting that these new proposals come to light after the Prince of Darkness, King of all he surveys, Mandleson has had a meeting with one of the largest media moguls in the US. A coincidence too far?
Although I do not condone piracy, the media companies only have themselves to blame. They have failed to adapt to the new models of delivery provided by the internet.
Also, this does not take in to account that a lot of the money they claim to be losing is mythical. I would bet that the majority of pirates download music and films that they would never pay to watch – if that’s the case, it’s not really lost revenue. The money was never there in the first case – the sums claimed to be lost are reached by extrapolation not through research in the real world.
Sadly, they want to keep the world locked in their past where they control what we see, what we hear, when we see it, when we hear it, how we see it and how we hear it.
The internet has blown all of that control away and yet the old views persist. Why should I pay nearly the cost of a full blown CD package to download music of inferior sound quality, with no art work, no packaging, no distribution logistics and with at least one link removed in the profit chain (retailer) only to find that the file I download is locked to one delivery device – reducing my freedom to listen to the music wherever I decide – in the car, on the home Hi-Fi, on my PC, on my MP3 player etc.
Why can’t they embrace new delivery media and offer me a choice of quality on a sliding cost scale so audiophile quality would cost the equivalent of a CD (less packaging and distribution costs) all the way down to the type of quality suitable for a mobile phone speaker for peanuts.
On the film front, why can’t I have a selection of download qualities – really low res for my phone, better res for my PMP or iPhone, VHS quality for those of us more interest in content rather than quality, DVD quality and finally Hi-Def.
If media were presented in this way, I’m sure many pirates would migrate.
Although I do not condone piracy, the media companies only have themselves to blame. They have failed to adapt to the new models of delivery provided by the internet.
Also, this does not take in to account that a lot of the money they claim to be losing is mythical. I would bet that the majority of pirates download music and films that they would never pay to watch – if that’s the case, it’s not really lost revenue. The money was never there in the first case – the sums claimed to be lost are reached by extrapolation not through research in the real world.
Sadly, they want to keep the world locked in their past where they control what we see, what we hear, when we see it, when we hear it, how we see it and how we hear it.
The internet has blown all of that control away and yet the old views persist. Why should I pay nearly the cost of a full blown CD package to download music of inferior sound quality, with no art work, no packaging, no distribution logistics and with at least one link removed in the profit chain (retailer) only to find that the file I download is locked to one delivery device – reducing my freedom to listen to the music wherever I decide – in the car, on the home Hi-Fi, on my PC, on my MP3 player etc.
Why can’t they embrace new delivery media and offer me a choice of quality on a sliding cost scale so audiophile quality would cost the equivalent of a CD (less packaging and distribution costs) all the way down to the type of quality suitable for a mobile phone speaker for peanuts.
On the film front, why can’t I have a selection of download qualities – really low res for my phone, better res for my PMP or iPhone, VHS quality for those of us more interest in content rather than quality, DVD quality and finally Hi-Def.
If media were presented in this way, I’m sure many pirates would migrate.
posted by andy at
8:55 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home