News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Reconciling Mozilla’s Mission and the W3C EME. Parent comment

Re:Reconciling Mozilla’s Mission and the W3C EME by shmerl on Wednesday May 14, 2014 @03:54PM (#7745955)
No, it doesn't. My point is there is no need for such segmenting and overcharging those who want to see it more than once (except greed). Because there is no big difference in expenses for the distributor between these two use cases, except for the fact that the second can use the service more. But they already charge the monthly fee.

Anyway, it's not even the case here! Netflix has no plans for purchasing, so there is no segmenting there at all.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Reconciling Mozilla’s Mission and the W3C EME by Locke1689 on Wednesday May 14, 2014 @05:49PM (#7746632)
"greed"

You mean profit? The reason that businesses exist? That is, the distinction that is literally in the description of for-profit corporations?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Reconciling Mozilla’s Mission and the W3C EME by shmerl on Wednesday May 14, 2014 @05:56PM (#7746670)
Profit and greed are not the same thing. Greed means overcharging for no reason besides wanting to overcharge. I.e. ripping users off for the sake of it. Usually it's possible only when competition is weak. Otherwise customers would just walk away to the competitors. In the case of DRM in video, publishers are a tight conglomerate and there is little disruption there. So they enjoy all kind of sick idiocy they can force on users who buy their stuff.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Reconciling Mozilla’s Mission and the W3C EME by Locke1689 on Wednesday May 14, 2014 @06:35PM (#7746872)
I don't buy your definition for greed, but even so this case doesn't fit.

Copyright law provides for the difference between a one-time and perpetual license for content. Clearly, viewing content multiple times is more valuable than watching it once, and thus is appropriate for price differentiation.

The fact that the company could take less profit by marking both as the same low price is irrelevant.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Reconciling Mozilla’s Mission and the W3C EME by shmerl on Wednesday May 14, 2014 @06:46PM (#7746921)
> Clearly, viewing content multiple times is more valuable than watching it once, and thus is appropriate for price differentiation.

"Appropriate" is questionable. I already explained above. What is "appropriate" for raising a price? Or what can be called fair pricing? I don't consider raising the price fair, when the merchant has no difference in expenses. It's called a rip off. It is not irrelevant and as I said, it usually happens only when competition is weak. Healthy market tends to prevent such bad behavior, because completion could successfully use the lower price for both cases and all customers would prefer them.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Reconciling Mozilla’s Mission and the W3C EME by karussell on Wednesday May 14, 2014 @04:43PM (#7746297)
The same arguments you have for 'renting' apply for 'buying' software. Why has software a cost associated at all when the copy (to download) is produced via 0$?

It doesn't make 'sense' too. Maybe in the very long term you are right and software as well as digital goods can be consumed for free (or via paying a special tax)

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Reconciling Mozilla’s Mission and the W3C EME by shmerl on Wednesday May 14, 2014 @04:49PM (#7746331)
Lot's of software is sold without DRM just fine. So I don't understand what your point was. I never said about anything about getting all for free. The discussion was about that renting doesn't make sense for digital goods (buying does).
[ Parent | on HN ]