Most of the movie content made available through torrent sites is content still currently in theatres, and not available for sale yet. Shutting down those sites has nothing to do with DRMs, as the content is yet available to consumers.
"They sell your own wares cheaper and faster than your outdated
infrastructure can. Remove your restrictions, lower your prices, speed up your release schedules,
and make your products easier to purchase so that pirated versions don't look so attractive to fans. "
Of course content is cheaper on P2P networks, they don't have to pay for the movie production.
To use an analogy, if instead of movies we were talking about cars, then you would be encouraging car makers not to put locks on cars, and praising car theives for selling cars cheaper than car dealers.
I know Random Walker is just a troll but I must respond...
----"Most of the movie content made available through torrent sites is content still currently in theatres.."----
Sorry guy but this is very incorrect. The vast majority of content available on torrent and P2P is older content.
----"then you would be encouraging car makers not to put locks on cars, and praising car theives for selling cars cheaper than car dealers"----
Obviously you did not read the same article I did. DRM Blog specifically suggested that the MPAA go after the theives that are actually stealing the content and not the end users who are downloading it.
Your car analogy is way off also. DRM does not equal locks. When you buy a car you get the keys and you own the car and you can do whatever you want with the car - Sell It - Modify It - Destroy It - basically you can use it any way you see fit.
If we were to put DRM on cars then it would be something more like this:
1. You can only use brand X gas.
2. You can only use brand Y oil.
3. You can only use the car on roads approved by the dealership.
You see Door Locks help protect the consumers investment. DRM does what for the consumer?
Its childish to call someone a troll just because they have a different view than yours
I wrote very specifically about movie content on P2P networks. Most of the MOVIE content (excluding porn) is theatrical window content.
Most non theatrical window content on P2P networks (which is smaller amount) is ripped from DVDs. DVDs could be said to be almost DRM less as they are rippable.
The origonal article stated that pirate networks are cheaper and better than Studio distribution, but the main point of the article seem to be about why restrictive DRMs are bad. I was trying to point out that most of the movie content on P2P networks is theatrical content and is not there because of anything to do with DRMs.
The fact that ripped content from DVDs does end up on P2P networks shows why Studios can not sell content unencrypted or with weak DRMs, because people will put the content on P2P networks, sell it, or use it to support their own business models (ad supported).
The analogy with cars has holes (as was pointed out), but the the biggest difference is who owns the asset. Its okay to lock your car when you own it, buts not okay for Studios to lock their content when they own it. You own the media (disc), not the content.
Its easy to write and complain about DRM, many people do. Why not try to design something better, which meets the needs of everyone (consumers, producers).
I hope this blog is not just going to be DRM is bad because ..... articles, but an open discussion without name calling.
"The fact that ripped content from DVDs does end up on P2P networks shows why Studios can not sell content unencrypted or with weak DRMs, because people will put the content on P2P networks, sell it, or use it to support their own business models (ad supported)."
You just pointed out a flaw in their business model with your cyclical logic.
What you basically said was:
Because encrypted dvds are pirated, they need to keep encrypting dvds or else they would be pirated, which they are already being."
The DRM Cycle