I'd bet that 90% of the population doesn't know what the heck DRM is. We'd better be damn sure to educate the masses or the cartels will do it for us - by smearing the savvy.
Or, paraphrasing Sony, most users don't know what a rootkit is, so why should they care?
I'd be curious to see exactly what effect DRM has had on illegal file sharing. Are the people who rip the CDs and put the tracks up for download really curbed by the DRM? In my opinion, DRM only hurts legitimate customers while doing very little to curb illegal distribution of the material.
There are services like this already in existence, such as movielink. They charge $5 for new releases and as little as $2 for less popular titles.
Trying to justify how/why a company charges what it does for their product is tricky. Every company probably has a different strategy to how they decide this, and chances are that consumers may not share many of the same motives. As a consumer, the only thing that matters is whether or not the product/service is worth it to you. Would you pay $8 to download a movie that expires after 24 hours and can only be viewed using WMP? If you and enough others say "no", then they'll either lower their prices their prices to something you will swallow or get out of the business altogether.
As for the idea of these time-limited, DRM-mangled files, it seems a lot like the old DIVX product (not to be confused with the DivX codec) Circuit City used to carry. You buy a special "DIVX Enhanced" DVD player, which hooks up to a phone line, and you program your credit card information into it. You then buy individual DIVX DVDs for about $5. You can play the file unlimited times for the first 48 hours, but after that, it becomes pay-per-view. Fortunately, that product died a quick and painful (I hope, at least for those who thought up that abomination) death.
Companies like "certified" IT staff for the same reasons they've bought off on spending hundreds of millions implementing things like ISO-9001 and TL-9000 certifications. That way, when something goes wrong, they (management) can point the finger at someone else.
Take two random applicants with comparable skills and experience. One is certified, and one is not. Eventually, the individual makes some mistake that brings the wrath of upper management down on you.
What do you think would be an easier position to defend? Hiring somebody because you have a good "gut feeling" about them? Or hiring them because a recognized authority (certification board) has said the individual is a certified "expert" in the field?
Personally, I think the system is flawed. I've met a large number of "certified professionals" that were nothing short of incompetent. (I've also met a number of non-certified folks who were the same.) All it allows is for employers to pass on the blame of making bad hiring decisions.
Employee makes a mistake? It's MS/Cisco/Novell/etc's fault. They said the person was a certified expert. Company folds? It's the ISO-9001 consultant's fault. They signed off saying the company's processes were sound.
Slashdot Mirror
Or, paraphrasing Sony, most users don't know what a rootkit is, so why should they care?
I'd be curious to see exactly what effect DRM has had on illegal file sharing. Are the people who rip the CDs and put the tracks up for download really curbed by the DRM? In my opinion, DRM only hurts legitimate customers while doing very little to curb illegal distribution of the material.
There are services like this already in existence, such as movielink. They charge $5 for new releases and as little as $2 for less popular titles. Trying to justify how/why a company charges what it does for their product is tricky. Every company probably has a different strategy to how they decide this, and chances are that consumers may not share many of the same motives. As a consumer, the only thing that matters is whether or not the product/service is worth it to you. Would you pay $8 to download a movie that expires after 24 hours and can only be viewed using WMP? If you and enough others say "no", then they'll either lower their prices their prices to something you will swallow or get out of the business altogether. As for the idea of these time-limited, DRM-mangled files, it seems a lot like the old DIVX product (not to be confused with the DivX codec) Circuit City used to carry. You buy a special "DIVX Enhanced" DVD player, which hooks up to a phone line, and you program your credit card information into it. You then buy individual DIVX DVDs for about $5. You can play the file unlimited times for the first 48 hours, but after that, it becomes pay-per-view. Fortunately, that product died a quick and painful (I hope, at least for those who thought up that abomination) death.
Cover-your-ass... That's the name of the game.
Companies like "certified" IT staff for the same reasons they've bought off on spending hundreds of millions implementing things like ISO-9001 and TL-9000 certifications. That way, when something goes wrong, they (management) can point the finger at someone else.
Take two random applicants with comparable skills and experience. One is certified, and one is not. Eventually, the individual makes some mistake that brings the wrath of upper management down on you.
What do you think would be an easier position to defend? Hiring somebody because you have a good "gut feeling" about them? Or hiring them because a recognized authority (certification board) has said the individual is a certified "expert" in the field?
Personally, I think the system is flawed. I've met a large number of "certified professionals" that were nothing short of incompetent. (I've also met a number of non-certified folks who were the same.) All it allows is for employers to pass on the blame of making bad hiring decisions.
Employee makes a mistake? It's MS/Cisco/Novell/etc's fault. They said the person was a certified expert. Company folds? It's the ISO-9001 consultant's fault. They signed off saying the company's processes were sound.