Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Media DRM Displays

DreamWorks Animation CEO: Movie Downloads Will Move To Pay-By-Screen-Size 347

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the uh-huh dept.
Rambo Tribble (1273454) writes "Jeffrey Katzenberg, the head of Dreamworks Animation, speaking at the Milken Global Conference in California, opined that the future pricing model for movie downloads will revolve around screen size. In his view, larger screens will incur larger download prices. As he says, 'It will reinvent the enterprise of movies.' Unclear is how physical dimensions, rather than just resolution matrix, will be determined. Will we soon be saying 'hello' to screen spoofing?" Can you fake the physical dimensions reported in the EDID block when the connection is using HDCP? Aside from the implication that this would mean more DRM (and seems pretty unworkable, but with the rise of locked bootloaders on even x86 hardware...), the prices he predicts seem alright: "A movie screen will be $15. A 75-inch TV will be $4. A smartphone will be $1.99."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

DreamWorks Animation CEO: Movie Downloads Will Move To Pay-By-Screen-Size

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 30, 2014 @01:22PM (#46881195)

    Bend over and take it boys! Hope your anus is been pre-stretched!

  • Projectors? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 30, 2014 @01:23PM (#46881205)

    Will they be able to tell how far away I have my projector from the wall?

    • Re:Projectors? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Samantha Wright (1324923) on Wednesday April 30, 2014 @01:26PM (#46881273) Homepage Journal
      I'm sure that would fall under the most expensive category, just to be "safe."
    • Pay per pixel? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I think basically, he's proposing pay per pixel. If you have a phone-sized screen, you have lower resolution, and they aren't sending you as many pixels.

      • Re:Pay per pixel? (Score:5, Informative)

        by darkshot117 (1288328) on Wednesday April 30, 2014 @01:58PM (#46881827)

        Except more and more phones are higher resolution then most HDTVs already. A lot of people will have a 55 inch TV at 1080p but a smartphone with 1440p at least in just a few years. So paying per pixel or per size is pointless as neither tells you anything...

        • by Wycliffe (116160)

          Except more and more phones are higher resolution then most HDTVs already. A lot of people will have a 55 inch TV at 1080p but a smartphone with 1440p at least in just a few years. So paying per pixel or per size is pointless as neither tells you anything...

          If you have a bigger screen you are probably going to want a higher pixel count.
          A 128k stream might look ok on a 4 inch screen but would look terrible on a 6ft display.
          Likewise you probably can't tell the difference between 1080p and 720p on a cellphone screen
          so would be unlikely to pay the price difference. The only problem I see is that if you are
          6 feet away from a 6 foot screen you probably want the same resolution as someone
          25 feet away from a 25 foot screen as distance also plays a part as a 25ft scre

          • Go to the apple store. They already do this. Buy a standard def and buy a high def version of the same movie and see which one you prefer, even on a small screen. (Hint: I always buy HD)

            • by Grishnakh (216268)

              You do, but others might prefer to save money and get the crappy-quality version. Obviously, a bunch of people already do, or else Apple wouldn't bother selling that version in their store. This is the way things should be: give people a choice, and let them choose what they're willing to pay for, less $$$ for low-quality, or more $$$ for high-quality. Some people prefer the high-quality version and are willing to pay extra, others are unwilling to pay extra, or have poor vision and think the low-quality

              • by AmiMoJo (196126) *

                Yeah, but $4 for a single movie on my TV screen? That's half a Netflix subscription. They need to get realistic about pricing. $2/month for unlimited streaming movies, or $0.5 for a full HD download of a recent release falling to $0.05 for older stuff. Must work on my smart TV of course.

                If that sounds low keep in mind that they are competing with free. FTA TV, borrowing from friends/libraries, YouTube, BitTorrent etc. This is all for rentals of course (DRM crippled files), if the downloads are DRM free they

      • He explicitly says "pay for the inches you watch". Furthermore, my current phone is 1080p, same as my TV. There are 4k phones in the works right now (despite the questionable quality gains). There are still movie theaters in my area that are limited to essentially 1080p. Pay per pixel does not produce the market that he is describing.

        • Re:Pay per pixel? (Score:5, Interesting)

          by shipofgold (911683) on Wednesday April 30, 2014 @03:00PM (#46882649)

          What he says and what he can do are two different things. I don't doubt that they are trying to work out a scheme where the screen identifies itself accurately, but I think it is much easier (and not unreasonable) to charge for resolution.

          You want to watch 720p on your 15ft screen, have at it...but we have this 4K version that you may be interested in for only a few pennies more!

          I will love it when they start suing for watching the movie on the wrong screen.

        • He explicitly says "pay for the inches you watch".

          So, streaming porn is going to get a lot more expensive...

    • Not only that, but is this pay per view on that screen or would you e.g. buy a blu-ray for $4? I might actually start buying them if that is the case (well, technically I've already started as I bought T2 on blu-ray for $5; no fucking way I'll ever spend $10 or more on a single movie disc though, and no way in hell I'll ever pay more than 50 cents for just one view.)

  • Or.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 30, 2014 @01:23PM (#46881207)
    Or they'll all continue to be free..
    • And I don't even pay $15 for a movie screen now. Around $8-11.

      The only tiered pricing will be how it is now. Closer to release date, the more you pay. Movie Ticket > PPV > Rental > Streaming > TV (free, albet with ads).

      Okay, I didn't stick DVD/BR in there which mucks up that neat formula with a higher price and ambiguities.... but the point remains. No one is going with this stupid plan.

  • and then every other screen will play it for free.

  • by xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) on Wednesday April 30, 2014 @01:24PM (#46881249)

    wouldn't they really want to charge on # of viewers? (no one cares about size of screen anymore; my kids watch everything on their tablets)

    also, $2 seems pretty high for a movie in the days of Netflix...

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I hope you're not one of those "it's not the size; it's how you use it" guys.
    • by gstoddart (321705) on Wednesday April 30, 2014 @01:33PM (#46881425) Homepage

      wouldn't they really want to charge on # of viewers?

      Long term, they absolutely want that.

      If they could, when you pop in a DVD, you'd submit your credit card to pay for the view, and charge according to the number of people in the room.

      They want all sorts of things where they keep gouging us for the price and keep their revenue stream constant.

      But, they might find people suddenly saying "to hell with that", and go read a book.

      And, of course, the book publishers want the same damned model where you pay to re-read your book, because clearly owning books and not compensating the publisher every time you read it is theft, right?

      And, since they basically pay the lawmakers to give them what they want, I won't be at all surprised if the assholes at the *AA manage to make it law that every time I watch a DVD I bought I have to pay them, and also pay for screen size, and also pay for # of viewers.

      This push to make IP and copyright laws drive everything we do is eroding our concept of property, and turning it into a rent-every-time model. And, I'll stop watching before that happens.

      • by click2005 (921437) *

        I was thinking the Kinect2 would be perfect for charging based on # of viewers. :)

        • by gstoddart (321705)

          Well, speaking only for myself, I will never own a Kinect 2, because I refuse to connect my video game console to the interwebs.

          Precisely for crap like this. I'm not installing an always on camera in my living room. Not now, not ever.

      • by MitchDev (2526834)

        Concept of property...

        hehehe, try not paying your property taxes and see how long you still own that "property".

        Property is a fallacy in the modern world of IP and big government.

  • by Noah Haders (3621429) on Wednesday April 30, 2014 @01:25PM (#46881255)
    this makes sense based on my own experience. I get a lot more value from a movie in my home theater than I do from watching the same movie on my phone. So if I have to pay $5 to watch it on my big screen tv, I'm not going to pay $5 to watch it on my phone!!! The post implies that katzenberg is making an arbritrary technical distinction. in fact, what he's saying is that customer value scales with screen size, and the price should too.
    • by Feyshtey (1523799)
      So by your reasoning you should pay $1.00 for a song you will listen to on your home theater, but only $.50 for one you will listen to on your iPod?

      How about paying $30 for a bottle of tequilla if you will drink it by the shot, but $50 if you will drink margaritas?

      Ooo! How about if I only have to pay $25,000 for a Ferari if I promise to only drive it on shitty roads?
      • by zlives (2009072)

        oooo finally i can afford a Ferrari, where do I sign up for this

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Maxo-Texas (864189)

        Actually, your tequila example is pretty close.

        And we do charge for temporal value.

        You pay $15 to watch the movie NOW.

        But $10 in 3 months.

        And $5 in a year.

        And pennies on a cable station two years from now.

        You can save a lot of money by falling back a year on the entertainment curve. And there is more entertainment than you can consume. I've been retired a year... do things like watching 14 episodes of DS9 (in between episodes of "TheNewBoston" android development... which is interesting because I may fina

      • by gstoddart (321705) on Wednesday April 30, 2014 @02:06PM (#46881933) Homepage

        So by your reasoning you should pay $1.00 for a song you will listen to on your home theater, but only $.50 for one you will listen to on your iPod?

        And therein lies the problem.

        I'm willing to pay $15-$20 for a CD I own, can take home and rip to MP3,and play on whatever damned device I so choose.

        Fortunately, I live in a country where that's covered by fair use.

        These guys just want to change the definition to "well, no, you haven't bought anything, you've licensed it, and we will dictate how and when you use it".

        At which point, they'll never get another dime from me.

    • It's just a shame nobody makes a phone with 1920x1080 output on HDMI... oh, never mind. This post was meant for more than a year ago.
      Article listing multiple phones with HDMI output in April, 2013 [chron.com]

  • by Kenja (541830) on Wednesday April 30, 2014 @01:26PM (#46881285)
    Any video switching equipment for HDMI/DVI will often use a small device such as Gefen's HDMI Detective to store the EDID of the screen and convince the video source that it is always connected. It would be trivial to store a "fake" EDID in such a device that reports a smaller screen.
    • by asmkm22 (1902712)

      I'm not sure this would work though. If you have, say, a 46 inch TV that's spoofing itself as a 4.7 inch cell phone, something tells me they will stream you a lower-quality picture. Or are people actually streaming 1080p and higher content to small screens already? (honest question)

      • by Kenja (541830)
        1080p is 1080p, screen size be damed. Frankly, it's not even very high resolution. Some people like to count pixels however so they get the big screens. To answer your question, there are a fair number of 20 inch or smaller 1080p screens out there and I fully expect cell phones to have it as a common resolution soonish with mini-hdmi output ports being more common.
      • by gstoddart (321705)

        Or are people actually streaming 1080p and higher content to small screens already? (honest question)

        My Nexus 7 tablet has full 1080p.

        I have no reason to doubt that people are streaming full HD content to small screens.

    • I think what they'll do is offer streaming services. That'd be a lot easier for them to police because they could create their own client and force you to use it. However, I think they are vastly over-estimating their customers pain threshold. Especially when 3rd parties are starting to produce their own content and could offer a much more pleasant experience as a selling point.

      The problem with all the movie industries attempts to change the dynamics of their sales model has been that they want to both rest

      • by JohnFen (1641097)

        That'd be a lot easier for them to police because they could create their own client and force you to use it.

        Going that route is only slightly better than not offering the stream at all. I know that such an offering wouldn't be of interest to me regardless of the price point, even if the price was $0.

    • by Luckyo (1726890)

      I think this will not be so much about screen size as about "do you want a cinema quality, TV quality of phone quality?"

      Which will be delivered using different compression algorithms, meaning 1080p on the phone will look good on the phone, but awful on TV screen where you will see all the artefacts that you wouldn't see on the small screen.

    • by drinkypoo (153816)

      It would be trivial to store a "fake" EDID in such a device that reports a smaller screen.

      And then you'll get content at a lower resolution. I'd imagine that some services will be happy to sell you the lower-resolution content without spoofing, though I'm sure some won't.

  • He can go F himself if that's gonna happen, I've got a projector with a 100+" screen, and I've also got a phone of 5", both are FullHD, so for one I would be paying $15 and for the other $5 even though they are using exactly the same resolution, therefore bandwidth...
    I have more than 600 bluray's and well over 5000 dvd's, but if they go for such a moronic pricing for digital downloads, then I'll just go and pirate it, there is a limit to what actually makes sense, but paying according to your screensize is

  • by thechemic (1329333) on Wednesday April 30, 2014 @01:27PM (#46881295)
    We already have a unit of measure for billing which is referred to as "mega bits per second". Now they want to bill us by "screen size per viewing"? Every @#$%'ing time I try to go legit, they force me back to illegal downloads with their senseless bullshit.
  • by sinij (911942) on Wednesday April 30, 2014 @01:28PM (#46881315) Journal
    Good thing I kept my old CRT with 800x600 resolution. Well, at least that what my system will report and I am sticking with it!
  • These clowns are just more or less determined to destroy the whole business of downloading, as well as killing their own revenue stream.

    They think I'm going to pay more to download a video to my 55" TV than my 27" TV (and correspondingly more than my tablet)? All at the same resolution? How does *that* work? Can we charge him more for being a bigger idiot?

    They're already gouging me to rent it, then my internet company is gouging me for the bandwidth to get it, and *then* they want a premium to play the e

  • So just buy it for your mobile phone or tablet and stream to your TV. Most of the smaller have resolutions that are good enough for "typical" TV-sized displays. A better pricing scheme would be for the actual resolution. E.g. $1 for 640x480, $2 for 1024x768, and scale upward.
    • Resolution based pricing, along maybe with audio quality (Stereo- low/hi bitrate - AAC/5.1 - DTS etc), is the only thing that makes sense. Simple rather than complicated.

      If they sold newer movies at 480p stereo sound for $5 each, they eliminate a bunch of pirated downloads and likely not offset any existing sales, IMO.
  • And how do they propose determining the price for a projector, when a single unit can readily have a screen size ranging from 30 inches to 300 inches [amazon.com]?
  • This is another example in the cavalcade of lunacy...

    Media bigwigs simply **do not understand the internet and digital technology**

    Over and over, through things like DRM, their marketing, lawsuits they file, companies they back, the music/film/TV industry shows the faults of their business model.

    Where does it all end? We can already get any "content" free virtually instantly (to watch new TV shows online you have to wait depending on your time zone)...artists are using non-standard channels more than ever..

  • by future assassin (639396) on Wednesday April 30, 2014 @01:33PM (#46881415) Homepage

    buying that cheap $2-$4 dvd or $5-10 BR at a pawn shop costs me nothing to watch it anywhere. I got about 1000 dvd's and 700 came from pawnshops/flea markets. You can keep your price per size hopefully it goes all digital and no more physical media so I never had to be bothered to watch anything and go for a walk instead. That movie habbit is hard to break but I'm getting there. Been cable free for over a year now which saved me $100 per month and haven't been to a movie theather since The Road.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    I think he was really referring to resolution when he was talking about screen size, perhaps he was addressing a non-technical audience. I agree with him for the most part. He's talking about expediting digital distribution to only 18 days after the initial release, as he figured the major cinemas have made about all they're going to make by the first three weekends. He sounds very forward thinking. Pay X3 for 4K, X2 for 1080P, X1 for SD.

  • ...will be 25 cents.

  • How about also charging more for loudness? This way a-holes next door will have to pay more for being obnoxious.

    Also what about separate charges for Red, Blue and Green? This way colorblind people can benefit from low, low price of $19.99.

    Last but not least, they should charge extra for Jar Jar Bink-less content. Insert him into all movies, then charge low low price of $1.99 to filter.
    • by lgw (121541)

      No, no! Never repeat that Jar Jar idea. The fuckers will do it.

    • What exactly was wrong with Jar-Jar? He was one of the most endearing characters in the series. Pretty much everyone has dead, lifeless acting; Jar-Jar's character was animate and dynamic, rather than stoic and prompted.
      • by gstoddart (321705)

        What exactly was wrong with Jar-Jar?

        He's annoying. He's really annoying. He's bad comic relief with a fake Jamaican accent and an annoying voice.

        I tried to watch Episode 1 with the wife once, and shortly after he appears on screen, she said "is he in the rest of the movie?" And when I told her, yes, he was, and was in the next two, she said "I can't watch this". She then walked out to leave me to watch it myself.

        Jar-Jar creates a very strong reaction for a lot of people. There's a reason people have re

        • Watch the film cut of the Rocky Horror Picture Show, with Tim Curry.

          Then watch something like Avengers, SWE1, or the like.

          You'll notice a lot of modern acting involves standing in a pose, focusing on the active dialogue deliverer or other direct action, then delivering a line of dialogue or taking an action. Opera and theater take this to an extreme: people exchange lines and actions in grand maneuver, conveying a story. Modern acting has made this form of simple delivery more fluid; however, it is

      • You answers are found in the classic Mr. Plinkett reviews Star Wars ...

        * Star Wars: The Phantom Menace Review (Part 1 of 7)
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

  • by timeOday (582209) on Wednesday April 30, 2014 @01:37PM (#46881485)
    If you ask me, odds are 70% he was just using "Screen Size" as a proxy for "Resolution" in the first place, either because he doesn't know the difference, or (more likely) was talking down to the audience. In any case, it is one person's speculation about the future, nothing more.
    • by gstoddart (321705)

      If you ask me, odds are 70% he was just using "Screen Size" as a proxy for "Resolution" in the first place, either because he doesn't know the difference, or (more likely) was talking down to the audience.

      Seriously, if the CEO of Dreamworks Animation doesn't know the difference, he's not qualified to hold the position.

      Either way, I think this falls into the category of "just how much more can we screw the customers before they leave".

      • by timeOday (582209)

        Either way, I think this falls into the category of "just how much more can we screw the customers before they leave".

        Some would choose to phrase that "charging what the market will bear," but yeah, same thing.

      • by jandrese (485)
        The CEO isn't the guy who does the technical work. His job is to find money for the company and provide vague "direction". Pixel counts are totally beneath him. He'll be consulted for big business decisions, and his opinion carries weight, but he's not as likely as a rank and file guy to know the exact technical details of some proposal. He undoubtedly got the "managers version" of the brief himself, and is regurgitating that.

        I also think this is a stupid idea. Has any customer ever looked at a DRM
        • by gstoddart (321705)

          The only DRM schemes that people tolerate are the ones that you don't see.

          And those are few and far between.

          For the most part, the content producers are making sure DRM is front and center, complicated, annoying, and extremely limiting in what you can do.

          For instance, Ultraviolet -- first you sign up with Ultraviolet, then you sign up with the movie studio, and then you ask permission before you play the movie again, and if you're offline, you can't watch it because it can't call home to ask permission.

          Sorr

  • Once again, the movie industry reveals their complete lack of understanding of their own industry. People have no moral inclination to follow unjust and ridiculous rules/laws. Making your sales model even more ridiculous will just drive more customers into piracy.

  • by jones_supa (887896) on Wednesday April 30, 2014 @01:39PM (#46881521)

    Can you fake the physical dimensions reported in the EDID block when the connection is using HDCP?

    Yes. The EDID block is not encrypted.

  • Whoo hoo! (Score:5, Funny)

    by gehrehmee (16338) on Wednesday April 30, 2014 @01:40PM (#46881529) Homepage

    Whoo hoo! My 51" hdtv's EDID data says it's 7" in size. Everything's coming up Milhouse!

  • Maybe they should just charge based on how much we enjoy the movie. They could install brain sensors in all the audience members, and if it's a really good movie like Spider Man 2 or The Revenge of the Sith we can pay top dollar, and if it's a really terrible movie like Spider Man 3 or The Phantom Menace we can get a discount.
  • This kind of article and thinking by a studio exec shows that nothing has changed in the way of making movies. Of course, content and story have nothing to do with it, it's down to what you're watching it on which completely takes the studios off the hook for producing anything that you'd actually want to pay for. Has anybody really seen a film that Dreamworks has produced in the last 10 years that's worth seeing again and again? Clearly the pay per view model is where this douche is focusing and I'm su

  • Dunno how the head of an animation company doesn't know this. What's important is angle of view. A 5" phone held 1 foot away from your eyes has the same angle of view as a 50" TV viewed from 10 feet away, which is the same as a 50 foot theater screen viewed from the back at 120 feet away, or a 0.42" Google Glass-type screen on your eyeglasses just 1" away. The image for all of these occupies exactly the same size on your retina.
  • I'd be ok with a price for bitrate or quality.

    You can have a much smaller / lower quality file (SD'ish) for a smartphone than for a 60" TV (where you want at least 720 and probably 1080).

    They already charge a higher rate for HD movies than SD movies on a number of streaming rental sites so it's not even a "future" rental model.
    • by adisakp (705706)
      Although, ideally, you'd just pay for a movie once to own it in the highest resolution available and then you'd be able to watch it in any quality that or less on any device.
  • Yep, "Pay-per-Pixel." I can see that.

    In other news, DreamWorks executives can afford to smoke shit that the rest of us haven't even heard of... :)

  • --- "i think what we have here is a failure to communicate" ---

    as in the CEO has NO idea about the technology being used

    px resolution is a easy one to do , and would make some sense .

    the SIZE of the screen is just a phallic reference .

         

    • by sconeu (64226)

      Der JohnVanViet,

      You have used a misquote from "Cool Hand Luke". Please pay Warner Brothers the sum of ONE MILLION DOLLARS for a license.

      Thank you,

      Takeda, Monet, and Runne
      Attorneys at Law

  • by Khashishi (775369) on Wednesday April 30, 2014 @01:44PM (#46881619) Journal

    Jeffrey Katzenberg might have said "you pay for the size", this does not mean he explicitly meant physical dimensions and not resolution. This suggestion was added in by the article submitter to make him sound more idiotic than he probably is. I'm sure if you were actually talking to Katzenberg and you pressed him on the issue, he would clarify that he used the term size as a proxy for a combination of resolution and compression quality which one would expect for a TV vs a cellphone.

  • ... I doubt they care what your screen size is. If you want to upscale the SD version onto your 4K TV, no problem -- it just won't look as good.

  • They should also charge according to how close you're sitting to the screen, and how many speakers you have. </sarcasm>
  • Let's assume he's talking about resolution instead of screen size, because he's probably the kind that has his secretary print out his emails and has no idea what a pixel is.

    This is the CEO of Dreamworks, known for a lot of CGI movies.
    After getting a retina macbook, i recently tried the 4K version of one of those Blender movies - Sintel to be exact.
    I didn't see any significant difference.
    I guess Dreamworks has the render farms to do a few more hairs than the Blender foundation, but still, for his products m

  • Anyone who looks to Katzenberg for predictions about the future is a fool.
  • by landoltjp (676315) on Wednesday April 30, 2014 @01:59PM (#46881837)

    Rather than tiered based upon Screen Size, it;'s more likely that Katz meant it would be tiered based on Video dimensions. Many people have pointed out that it's hard for the delivery mechanism to know the target screen size. It's easy for the producer to generate a video at multiple video dimensions. The teirs would relate to standard screen sizes, increasing in cost per tier. For example:

    Tier 1 - 320x240 or 640x360
    Tier 2 - 640x480 or 800x450
    Tier 3 - 800x600 or 960x540
    Tier 4 - 1024x768 or 1024x576
    Tier 5 - 1280x720
    Tier 6 - 1920x1080

    These are 4x3 and 16:9 resolutions. I'm sure they could make other resolutions available.
    The idea is that lower resolution may be just fine for viewing on your phone or watch, but you'd want the Tier 5-6 dimensions for watching on a large TV. Try watching a 320x240 res video on your 40" display and you'll see what I mean.

    Nothing to stop you from doing exactly that; you want to pay $1 and watch 320x240 res video on your 40" display? Sure, go ahead. But I'm betting it won't be as good as watching the 1920x1080 res video.

    Except if it's a download of Twilight.

  • I mean then it's a straight data / cost ratio.

    Say it was 50 cents per gigabyte you download from them.

    So $2 for a DVD. $15 for a Blue ray. 50 cents on your mobile device unless you want to run it at "retina" level resolution in which case you might be paying $4.

  • One of the most popular seems to "trusting remotely entered data".

  • Based on the wording, he's comparing watching it on a given screen equal to watching it in a movie theater. That is, you don't get to keep it. Watch once, that sort of thing. Maybe a netflix model. At $4 bucks, 10 years from now, for a large screen tv, it sounds like it's some sort of rental, like the holy grail of DRM has promised the MPAA folks; they can only watch it _x_ times, or only until date _y_.

    Of course, like all models that revolve around these sorts of limitations, you need to implement inc

  • That's it. I'm only watching movies on my phone from now on.

  • There will also be a 75% increase in the price of .torrent files.

  • dead wrong (Score:4, Interesting)

    by rogoshen1 (2922505) on Wednesday April 30, 2014 @02:50PM (#46882517)

    Reality is probably closer to:
    "we'll try ever harsher and dumber DRM and rights constriction in order to stay the eventual decline of our business model."

    Or:
    "Only suckers will pay the premium, everyone else will just pirate to their little hearts content. This change will do nothing but increase the number of people paying 0 dollars."

Today's scientific question is: What in the world is electricity? And where does it go after it leaves the toaster? -- Dave Barry, "What is Electricity?"

Working...