08-12-2010, 11:05 PM
(08-12-2010, 08:48 PM)--Pete Wrote: I think the problem extends beyond that. It has to do with just what ownership means. In the strictest sense, if you own something, it is yours to do with as you wish. You can sell it, give it away, destroy it, or duplicate it. Copyright and patent laws restrict what owning something means in order to protect the originators of new ideas. And already things become complex. Look at books. Except for specific uses, it is illegal to duplicate copyrighted books. You can resell it, or give it away, or even lend it, but not duplicate it. In effect, you own the media but not the message.
--Pete
Ironically the solution, which some businesses are finally wrapping their heads around, is a total reversal of the commonly held paradigm. In a technological environment where copying essentially creates infinite supply, demand will eventually drop to zero. In this environment it doesn't matter how hard you try you cannot control the message. The only other option is to control the media.
When you're talking about a hard copy like a book the old methods make perfect sense. When you suddenly shift the media from the old hard copies to platforms like the iPad, Kindle or Nook it no longer matters if you control the message. If a customer wants to read something at some point in the chain they have to go through you (you in this case being iTunes, Zune, whatever.) The key then becomes less about controlling the "message" files but monetizing the system so that it's low enough price of entry that most people will just pay the fees to access the content directly but also pricing it high enough, more like insurance, so that the people that pay for the service but don't utilize it heavily end up covering much of the secondary copied market.
Want to watch movies? Pay your monthly fee for Netflix, Zune, or iTunes. Want to play Blizzard games? Pay your monthly fee for Battle.net. You're already seeing a lot of this shift with services like Xbox Live or Playstation Plus. I'm sure if Blizzard started charging $15 a month for Battle.net and included in that fee you gained account access for all of their MMOs as well as access to the multiplayer sections of their RTS's a lot of players would still pay that. And they could always sweeten the pot by offering subscribers access to their older, out of market games.