Comments on: The Freedom Premium http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2007/04/02/the-freedom-premium/ a blog about information Fri, 19 Mar 2010 09:20:53 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: JP http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2007/04/02/the-freedom-premium/comment-page-1/#comment-117343 JP Mon, 02 Apr 2007 14:01:54 +0000 http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2007/04/02/the-freedom-premium/#comment-117343 Maybe I'm getting old. I saw super-distribution as a way of endorsing models like Zune, of sharing tracks wirelessly with your friends but only within a closed domain. So let's see what happens. Maybe I’m getting old. I saw super-distribution as a way of endorsing models like Zune, of sharing tracks wirelessly with your friends but only within a closed domain.

So let’s see what happens.

]]> By: malcolm http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2007/04/02/the-freedom-premium/comment-page-1/#comment-117342 malcolm Mon, 02 Apr 2007 13:49:34 +0000 http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2007/04/02/the-freedom-premium/#comment-117342 Sure - we need to be careful with the last statement but subscription services are in essence a <strong><em>license</strong></em> to listen: you in no way <strong><em>own</strong></em> the media. If you do not own the media there has to be a mechanism to remove the media if the license is not paid. So some sort of DRM here is appropriate - the transaction is at the very least honest ... would you not say? Removing DRM from tracks that you own has put honesty back into the transaction. (Previous was you owned the media but kind of didnt own it at the same time). The super-distribution is interesting, though. Any company would want to outsource its distribution to its own clients but at the same time they have every right to be compensated for use of the distributed media - i think (or I like to think) that these guys are thinking ahead, havent solved the problem but wish to retain the right to use DRM. Not sure how else this could be solved ... yet! Sure – we need to be careful with the last statement but subscription services are in essence a license to listen: you in no way own the media. If you do not own the media there has to be a mechanism to remove the media if the license is not paid. So some sort of DRM here is appropriate – the transaction is at the very least honest … would you not say?

Removing DRM from tracks that you own has put honesty back into the transaction. (Previous was you owned the media but kind of didnt own it at the same time).

The super-distribution is interesting, though. Any company would want to outsource its distribution to its own clients but at the same time they have every right to be compensated for use of the distributed media – i think (or I like to think) that these guys are thinking ahead, havent solved the problem but wish to retain the right to use DRM. Not sure how else this could be solved … yet!

]]>