The word on the tech-street is that the co-founder of BitTorrent, Ashwin Navin, believes that DRM is not the answer to legal online video services. I completely agree with him on this opinion.
DRM encourages the use of BitTorrent to get your “money’s worth”. Why are consumers being punished and disabled from using the products they purchase? DRM brings ‘old technology’ to mind, as users find they have no other option but to download via BitTorrent services when content is disabled on chosen players.
The word on the tech-street is that the co-founder of BitTorrent, Ashwin Navin, believes that DRM is not the answer to legal online video services. I completely agree with him on this opinion.
DRM is bad for both the user and the content provider because in most cases the purchased content, being protected by DRM, makes the customer pay twice. How does the customer pay twice? They are treated like criminals from the get-go and are therefore forced to jump through hoops to play the purchased content.
Users spend hard earned money on content that is so protected it will not run on any machine. Some DVD players restrict the content and DRM is the cause of most protected content that will not play. Why should a customer have to pay so high a price by being inconvenienced?
DRM was a good idea, in concept. Its goal of protecting the content providers is certainly one that many would agree is necessary. I just don’t feel that DRM is the answer. DRM has been touted as “old technology” and certainly needs to be reworked by the creators.
If I purchase a DVD movie and find that I’m blocked by this service, I feel my first reaction would be to turn to BitTorrent and download a copy that I can actually enjoy. The concept will be, “well, I’ve already paid for the movie, I should be able to watch, right?” and those users downloading will not feel a pang of guilt in doing so. Then the second course of action, in most cases, would be not to spend any more “wasted” money on DVDs that might not play on my chosen player…but to continue to use the BitTorrent service.
As Navin was quoted as saying, “typically a DRM ties a user to one hardware platform” and, in the technologically advanced life we all live in, this is totally unacceptable.
iPod Video players, DVD players, notebooks with built in DVD drives and many other options are all limited by this protection. This should not be the choice for content providers unless they desire to lose consumers.
What options do you feel should be given to the content providers that might top DRM services? What alternatives do you think consumers have that purchase DRM content that is not able to be viewed on a chosen player?
I think both content providers and consumers deserve a thought-out solution to these questions. DRM is certainly not the answer.
Related Posts
- BitTorrent goes video
- NTL And BitTorrent Announce P2P File-Sharing Trial
- Could BitTorrent Inc. be the new model for file-sharing legitimacy?
- BitTorrent Inc. wants to provide a “better experience than piracy”
- Mipcom: Interview With The Pirate King – Ashwin Navin Of BitTorrent
Loading ...
