Google on the other hand houses the Internet Archives servers in its parking Garage in a Huge Container .

http://www.archive.org/details/movies

Therefor the only solution is to change the model to on-line with the internet being the vehicle. The place where virtual shelves go on forever without need of a physical store to house them in and without need of seeing that very store owner in the distribution chain recieves his cut in the process. If a model is made to work that store cut is now the owners cut or at the worse is less of a cost, pocketing the difference is the same as a price increase for the owner.

What they haven’t grasped yet is how to make it pay off. What they are attempting to do is stop a copy machine system dead in its tracks and change the culture aspect that has already estabished itself within the users of the internet, as a Johnny-Come-To-Late.

Successful take over and turning the internet into an international mall of sorts means that first the copy side of what the user has come to expect as a given must be terminated in order for the old pay for each copy to work. In this, they haven’t a clue on how to make work. They can’t watch every customer at every point in the store and after the customer has taken home the goods. Making it an on-line watch dog isn’t going to work because the customer can at any point terminate the on-line watchdog and do as he pleases simply by turning off the internet to the computer. Their idea is to put the watch dog with the product. The customer for the most part doesn’t see any value in this sort of behavior as it is contrary to the laws of ownership and what one expects when one purchases a product. As a result, the on-line music and the on-line movies won’t be the international store these corporations expect. No one wants this sort of merchandise under these conditions as the limits on what one can do to change that purchase into something that fits into one’s lifestyle is so limited as to be all but useless.

Till the corporations figure out the customer isn’t going to accept this sort of product, configured as it is with the internal watchdog, we will see ever more cries about how pirates are stealing stuff and about how more laws are needed to protect the established and entrenched businesses. What they also haven’t figured out yet is that no amount of lawmaking is going to guarentee sales where the customer doesn’t see value in the product or sees it as over priced for the inherent restrictions that come with the product. Making a customer regret his purchase is not a sure way to business success.

DRM is impossible. You can’t give the encrypted text and the keys to the customer and then control what they do with the plain text.

What I really don’t get is why all these Tech Titans want to become content intermediaries when the existing content intermediaries are dinosaurs that are falling apart with broken business models threatened by disruptive technologies on all sides.

Make no mistake about it. Microsoft, Intel, Apple, AOL, Yahoo, Real and now Google are part of the problem not part of the solution and they’re all trying to perpetuate the same old media cartel cr*p.

Why?

http://groups.google.com/group/DRM-Copyright-and-Google

Anyone like to join the campaign? My proposal might not be the best but I would like to see something other that DRM considered.

[1] http://p2pnet.net/story/6358

What am i babbling about? Well, the more stupid, ridiculous, complicated and most importantly incompatible drm “solutions” there are out there, the better off we are. If one “solution” takes over we’re all gonna get stuck with it someway somehow.

But lots of different “solutions” will frustrate average joe consumer, and with any luck make him finally wake up and realise that’s not roses he’s smelling, it’s bullshit.

Of course we’d prefer it if you trusted us enough not to have to do all this nonsense. But I guess the paranoid content providers won’t have it. Oh well, it’s their loss (of revenue).

Answer: There’s a standard. With all the different companies coming up with their own DRM schemes, the ones left out in the cold are the objects of the DRM: consumers. Overall, consumers are dumb. All we want is our stuff to work. We don’t want to worry about whether or not the crappy DRM laiden MP3 will work on our chosen player, nor do we want to worry about whether our desire to watch tv on a 1.5″ lcd screen will be shot down because nothing works together.

Message to companies: If you want us to buy your product, make it transparent, convenient, cheap, and most importantly, universal.

I’ve said this before on p2pnet, that all this talk of DRM is really only for the corporations’ benefit, in order to secure content, to give good corporate face.

Nowhere is there mention of the benefits DRM has for the people who will ultimately have to learn to love it – the consumer.

I for one will not touch DRM-infected content with a bargepole. Google et al are going to have to get wise sooner rather than later if they really wants us, the paying consumer, onboard.