Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The End of Content Ownership

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the provisionally-renting-a-license-to-borrow-transient-ephemera dept.

Cloud 247

adeelarshad82 writes "In recent weeks companies like Amazon, Sony, Google, Verizon, 24symbols and others have started to roll out 'cloud-based' content streaming and on-demand services (or plans) for movies, music and even books. Video on demand is nothing new, nor is streaming. The difference now, though, is that companies like Amazon want you to stream your own content. This article sheds some light on how the cloud, along with subscription and on-demand services, will transform our perception of content access and ownership."

cancel ×

247 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

The internet is for porn (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35784740)

So... think of the possibilities of heavy-duty live streaming capabilities...

OH Christ! Here we go again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35784948)

You fucking assholes with your 503s. What kind of dickheads are running this place?

Use more bandwidth to enjoy media? (5, Insightful)

theVP (835556) | more than 3 years ago | (#35784750)

At a time when ISPs are moving to cap bandwidth usage, and these companies are moving to streaming-only ideas, am I the only one cringing?

Don't get me wrong, I love my streaming media, but ISPs seem to really hate it.

Re:Use more bandwidth to enjoy media? (2)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 3 years ago | (#35784812)

Streaming is nice for when you are on the go. It seems ideal to keep a copy on the remote server, and one on your home device, so you don't have to stream except when on the go.

3 my ISP. No caps. My home device is where I get my content from any location.

Re:Use more bandwidth to enjoy media? (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35784962)

The lack of caps is probably the only thing that's good about Qwest. Well, that and it's not Comcast.

Re:Use more bandwidth to enjoy media? (2)

tivoKlr (659818) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785014)

This is exactly why I've kept Qwest DSL and not switched back to Crapcast, even though my speeds would be faster with a cable modem, in my area.

Fuck caps. Same reason I'm still with AT&T for the iPhone...have had that unlimited data plan since day 1 and won't give it up.

Re:Use more bandwidth to enjoy media? (1)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785152)

I have Wide Open West cable.

Apparantly they do have a 5GB cap... But only for newsgroups. I don't use newsgroups, let along 5GB worth of newsgroup use...

It's expensive, but IMO, worth it.

Re:Use more bandwidth to enjoy media? (1)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785126)

Glad I don't have either of those from what I've heard.

I just checked, there is a bandwidth cap with my ISP, but only for newsgroups (5GB). Outside of newsgroups, I don't have one. I pay an arm and a leg though (Wide Open West).

Re:Use more bandwidth to enjoy media? (1)

jjinco33 (1107007) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785194)

Lack of caps and not blocking ports/services. Comcast blocked everything I wanted to use, Qwest blocks nothing, only thing I want from them is higher upload speed.

Re:Use more bandwidth to enjoy media? (1)

Luyseyal (3154) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785340)

The lack of caps

It's also the best thing about "Make CapsLock an additional Ctrl [google.com] ".

-l

Re:Use more bandwidth to enjoy media? (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785032)

> Streaming is nice for when you are on the go

Except wireless networks are crap, expensive and have bandwidth caps.

Meanwhile storage densities continue to increase. If you don't have a fetish for a particular fetish, you can easily find devices with 10 times the amount of local storage. When you go off the grid or the network goes to crap, that extra local storage comes in very handy.

Re:Use more bandwidth to enjoy media? (1)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785148)

Most of the developed world has cheap plans with unlimited data. In Romania, not a paragon of development in many other respects, I pay 20 euro a month for unlimited data and dependable high speeds. The US is the odd one out in its extremely expensive data plans.

Re:Use more bandwidth to enjoy media? (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785258)

Yeah, caps put a kibosh on the whole thing for now.

I'm actually interested in something where I pay a monthly fee, and I can stream ANY movie or television show ever made.

Re:Use more bandwidth to enjoy media? (4, Interesting)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 3 years ago | (#35784896)

Don't get me wrong, I love my streaming media, but ISPs seem to really hate it.

Don't worry, your ISP will start loving it once again when it's "forced" to pay the rightsholder $0.25/GB - while charging you $1/GB - for overages. Don't want MTV^WThe Music Streaming Service or ESPN^WThe Sports Streaming Service with your cable TV^WInternet? Fine, you can have throttled-to-dialup-speeds^WBasic Cable!

From TFA: "The parent whose child wants to watch "Dora the Explorer: Big Sister Dora" over and over and over again doesn't have to own the DVD or even the digital file. Cloud-based ownership and access means that their child can see Dora play big sister at home, on the iPad, in the car, and on mommy's smartphone. They own the movie or, more likely, have an all-you-can eat subscription service, so each viewing costs nothing except the price of Internet access."

Indeed, your ISP is counting on it. Cloud-based ownership and access means that their child can be charged for each viewing, tracked for each viewing, and have customized banner ads sent to each device.

From TFA: "For the majority of consumers, however, they will come to fully trust the cloud and believe in subscription pricing for everything. Ownership will become an anathema as consumers realize they don't want to risk losing content as they switch services, and they tire of finding requisite space on their own local storage for all those digital files. "

The Right To Read [gnu.org] is also relevant here. Unless the bits are stored on a device that you control, the content provider can flush them down the memory hole and there isn't going to be a damn thing you can do about it.

(Seriously? "Tire of finding requisite space on their own local storage for all those digital files?" A 1TB drive costs less than $100 today, never mind in 10-15 years. Or is the business model going to be that since everything is "streamed" to dickless workstations, that 640GB oughta be enough for everybody?)

Re:Use more bandwidth to enjoy media? (1)

w_dragon (1802458) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785000)

A 1TB drive will hold a whole 33 bluerays. And I need 2 at least, in case 1 dies. And I need surge protection and a computer/NAS to put them on. And I'm still screwed if there's a fire or flood, so I guess I need off-site storage as well. The provider can kill them on me, but I'll bet I can sue the provider for not providing access to something I've paid for. All in all, I'll take the cloud storage any day, as soon as they find a way to stream to me in HD smoothly, and the providers lean on the ISPs a bit to get rid of the low caps.

Re:Use more bandwidth to enjoy media? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35785108)

If you're interested in Blu-Ray level quality, streaming will be even worse than local ownership. Also, your NAS cost is bunk, ever heard of an external hard drive? While I'm at it, good luck suing for SaS [bit-tech.net] .

Re:Use more bandwidth to enjoy media? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785326)

So you want to store you entire collection on one drive that is just waiting to die on you?
And only available on the one computer is it plugged into?

Re:Use more bandwidth to enjoy media? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35785456)

> And only available on the one computer is it plugged into?

autofs FTW.

Fortunately, we live in a world that has networks. Gigabit is about as fast as local disk access even.

Re:Use more bandwidth to enjoy media? (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785122)

> A 1TB drive will hold a whole 33 bluerays. ...and will fit in your pocket.

OTOH, spinny drives are up to 3TB now and will continue to get larger. NAS devices continue to get simpler, cheaper and more widespread.

If you are paranoid enough to worry about your media being lost in a fire, you can just duplicate it. Although in the future you might not even need to do that. You might be able to recover your lost media from friends or family.

Then again, in either case how do you really prove that you ever "owned" something.

Cloud based pipe dreams never do a good job of addressing that.

Re:Use more bandwidth to enjoy media? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35785134)

The provider can kill them on me, but I'll bet I can sue the provider for not providing access to something I've paid for.

Sure, just like that successful class-action suit when Amazon erased "1984" from everyone's Kindle. Oh, wait...

Best you can hope for is that they refund your money.

Re:Use more bandwidth to enjoy media? (2)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785248)

Good luck sueing the content provider if they go out of business. Farfetched? No, it has already happened a few times with companies selling music online, although in that case it was a DRM server being taken offline rather than streaming servers.

Or good luck sueing the provider if they government decides the content you previously enjoyed is now "undesirable" and no longer to be made available. And that is not that farfetched either, no matter what country you live in.

Re:Use more bandwidth to enjoy media? (5, Insightful)

nabsltd (1313397) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785250)

A 1TB drive will hold a whole 33 bluerays.

If you are talking full Blu-Ray disks, then local storage is the only way to go, as you probably can't get an affordable network connection that allows you to stream at 30Mbps with no dropouts (and certainly couldn't for "on the go"). Even if you could, with even a relatively large 250GB cap per month, that lets you watch about 10 movies/month (as long as you don't do anything else).

Now, in the real world, a terabyte drive will hold 250 movies at 720p resolution. I know, because I have exactly that with my Blu-Ray rips. Yes, I've sacrificed lossless audio (which I can't use anyway with my older receiver, so I "suffer" with DTS at 1536Kbps), and some video resolution, but the bitrate on the encode is more than enough to maintain quality at that resolution. On the other hand, I don't have to wait for menus to load, and I don't waste disk space on things I'll either never (no one in my house speaks Portuguese) or rarely (maybe I'll watch the trailer for the movie instead of the movie itself...nope, I guess not) use.

Re:Use more bandwidth to enjoy media? (1)

biek (1946790) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785358)

The provider can kill them on me, but I'll bet I can sue the provider for not providing access to something I've paid for.

Then the provider turns around and points to the provision in the EULA that prevents you from doing just that. Yes, preserving your data is a pain in the ass but it is a step you must take. Dismissing the possibility of backing up your own data due to cost/effort is just forcing yourself to choose between "I lost my stuff" and "They lost my stuff."

Re:Use more bandwidth to enjoy media? (1)

DevConcepts (1194347) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785352)

Or is the business model going to be that since everything is "streamed" to dickless workstations, that 640GB oughta be enough for everybody?)

Those dickless workstations must be the new ones I keep hearing about...

Re:Use more bandwidth to enjoy media? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35784930)

At a time when ISPs are moving to cap bandwidth usage, and these companies are moving to streaming-only ideas, am I the only one cringing?

Don't get me wrong, I love my streaming media, but ISPs seem to really hate it.

You're cringing and I'm laughing. Then again, disasters make me chuckle...

Re:Use more bandwidth to enjoy media? (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785010)

ISPs will have to get over that. Actually they should even embrace it. Bandwidth really is cheap ISPs should start offering things like DropBox to their customers. If you think about it ISPs have really sort of pushed themselves into being just dumb pipes by not offering any service but email and usenet and even then they are dropping usenet.

First You need Internet, not phone, access. (1)

bobs666 (146801) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785084)

I live next to the Interstate (I95) Where one of the biggest Fiber pips in the country runs. I live under 3 miles from the brick and mortar Version building. And there are Pop sights underground much closer. But all I get is DSL The phone lines that where run in the 60's

Hulu set at the lowest setting, 240p, maxes out the line. If I want the next setting up, I wait for data to load close to half the time.

So media streaming will have to wait until we get access thats better then the greedy ISP's we are stuck in the dark ages. Perhaps Roof top routers. At least I will not have to pay Version.

Re:First You need Internet, not phone, access. (1)

theVP (835556) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785242)

Speaking as an ISP employee (Wireless), you are almost certainly looking to the wireless folks to save you. We are almost exclusively servicing customers that will NEVER be served by cable/DSL providers. And it has a lot less to do with greed, and a lot more to do with return on investment. Some of the towers we put up, we don't start profiting on until a good 4-5 years after we've done so. I can't even imagine what the rate of return would be for other technologies. Obviously not enough for them to feel it's worth it.

Re:First You need Internet, not phone, access. (1)

Americium (1343605) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785296)

Verizon LTE will be giving you 10mbit connections at least, and that's going to blanket most the the USA.

Re:Use more bandwidth to enjoy media? (1)

Fractal Dice (696349) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785090)

The big content-owning ISPs are looking at the profit margin on cell phone text messages and trying to figure out how to carve up the entire online experience that way.

Re:Use more bandwidth to enjoy media? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35785168)

Which is highly illogical, considering they're in the bandwidth transfer industry. That's what they do! Transfer 1's and 0's ... Is capping it for the electrical bill, or keeping the throttle down a bit, really gonna keep your infrastructure going for a few more years so you don't have to make that unspoken mandatory 4-5 year upgrade schedule? NO. It's NOT! So what could they possibly be capping it for?

Simple! Content re-prioritization, tracking, and advertising for local, national content and revenue contracts. Nothing more. This has nothing to do with content rights, or the 'battle' between bundled tv (analog/HD) vs. streamed content (netflix, amazon, hulu, etc..). This has entirely to do with the ISP's, and media cartels wanting more money and control over the further delineation of how any content gets delivered. How, when, who, and how much ($$), what content gets to you through what service, with what ad's, at what quality, and at what price.

We're all getting bought and paid for, and we have no say in the matter, save a few (see 3) realistic Congress critters.

Content? At this point, the only content I'm willing to be a part of is that which I'll make on my own, and release for free under CCL~. Why? Because I've been watching the media machine for the past 20 years. And while there has been a handful of creations I've thoroughly enjoyed, and supported with my money, too much of my money is going nowhere fast being locked into termed contracts I have no say over. And without some sort of NET access at all, staying in tune to what matters, is down right impossible. Sorry, but the newspaper is going the way of the Dodo, and I'm pretty sure it won't have the in depth Tech article I nee, and play by play that CSPAN coverage provides.

Re:Use more bandwidth to enjoy media? (4, Insightful)

Wiarumas (919682) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785226)

On the bright side, streaming media corporations can be a valuable ally against ISP bandwidth caps - which they should be if they want a viable business model.

Net Neutrality? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35785540)

You say that like these companies won't get exempted from metering.
Verizon already owns the last mile, and the other companies listed have enough cash to buy their way onto the white-list.

But local mass storage is cheap (1)

sandytaru (1158959) | more than 3 years ago | (#35784758)

I keep documents I want to access from multiple computers in the cloud. But I see no reason to store 30 gigabytes of music on a pay service when I have a perfectly serviceable 2TB drive and a 30 gig iPod.

Re:But local mass storage is cheap (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35784784)

Exactly. Consider the horrors if people started using cheap, cheap local storage to store their data! Best to nip this in the bud now by forcing streaming media down our throats and forcing us to accept it now.

Re:But local mass storage is cheap (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785150)

How much is all of this going to cost us? Generic cloud based storage certainly cheap. You would be better off just buying more spinny disks for the money.

Can I take my stuff with me if I ever decide I don't like Amazon or iTunes?

Re:But local mass storage is cheap (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785062)

That's my reasoning (except for the iPod... don't have one of those). You can buy a 2TB external hard drive from Amazon for $100. You can also buy a 2TB home NAS drive for under $200. That $200, meanwhile, will buy you a year of 200GB backups or 2.4 months of 1TB backups. The external hard drive is portable and data will transfer back and forth a lot faster than to Amazon's cloud. Add a second hard drive (up to 4.8 months of 1TB backups now) and you can get offsite backups going. Personally, I'd rather go with the "pay for it once" NAS or USB drive than with some annual-fee cloud.

Re:But local mass storage is cheap (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785404)

You pay for it AT LEAST 3 times for a proper backup. You have your data to be backed up, the actual backup and the offsite backup. Mirroring data onto one other hard drive at the same physical location is not 'backed up' in any meaningful way. You also pay for (in labor) for setting it up all up and testing it at least yearly. Cloud services have their place, as does local storage. Whats wrong with one physical backup and the cloud backup as your offsite backup?

Re:But local mass storage is cheap (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35785548)

Whats wrong with one physical backup and the cloud backup as your offsite backup?

Recurring payments

This is like the end of history, right? (2)

lxs (131946) | more than 3 years ago | (#35784764)

A fine idea, but then reality sinks in when people start losing data and lawsuits are filed and the whole thing gets shelved for the next round in one or two decades.

Re:This is like the end of history, right? (1)

mlts (1038732) | more than 3 years ago | (#35784932)

Don't forget copyright/patent/trademark/other IP law that potential litigants may step in with. The lesson of mp3.com is a good example of this.

Best solution? A private "cloud". Perhaps a way to stream from a computer or a NAS one's MP3 stash over an encrypted connection to one's smartphone or MP3 player. I'd love to see an app that does this, where I can have a backend part on my file server, while a frontend player app exists on my phone that groks dynamic DNS, uses a VPN or encrypted connection, and can use a streaming protocol with a fairly large buffer size for playlists. This way, it is truly *my* collection, and the storage space on the device doesn't matter.

Dropbox is already a "private cloud" (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785004)

Best solution? A private "cloud".

Dropbox already is a private cloud. I believe there are mobile clients already, not tailored to a specific data type but they simply let the system handle playing of different types of media.

The only line between what Amazon and Dropbox is doing, is that (a) Amazon uploads a digital copy to the cloud storage for you, and (b) Amazon makes an interface tailored to a specific media type.

Amazon would be OK with (b) but I think they will get spanked because of (a), which seems terribly similar to what MP3.com was doing. Legally if you just hold what the user uploaded directly you cannot be liable.

Re:Dropbox is already a "private cloud" (1)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785078)

Legally if you just hold what the user uploaded directly you cannot be liable.

A lot of colleges and universities believed that, too. At least until they found out otherwise.

Re:Dropbox is already a "private cloud" (1)

mlts (1038732) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785232)

This is why I like the idea of having one's personal PC or a NAS do the streaming via an encrypted protocol. Someone monitoring traffic will be pretty sure that what is going from the user's server to their phone may be music, but the contents would be almost [1] impossible to discern.

[1]: I state almost -- there are always side channel and timing attacks that might be able to tell if one song ended and stuff like that.

Re:This is like the end of history, right? (2)

MarkvW (1037596) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785274)

That's pretty naive. The "cloud" will essentially require you to waive your right to sue if you use the cloud.
Wrap your head around that.

TFA is all and good... but (4, Insightful)

mlts (1038732) | more than 3 years ago | (#35784830)

Having licensed content available in the cloud is nice, but there is one issue, a major one:

Owning stuff in this manner is an investment can be easily turned off from a remote source, and there is absolutely zero one can do about it. With books, someone would have to enter my residence unauthorized with a fairly large truck and haul stuff out. Similar with DVDs. All a cloud provider can do is just click a button or enter a SQL statement, and the many thousands of dollars in a game/book/movie/music library are now rendered inaccessible. Lawsuit? Good luck. There have many people who threatened Valve with litigation because VAC banned them, but there has yet to be a single case that goes to court. EULAs are proven and are completely supported by precedents, so a cloud provider essentially states that "we are not responsible if you lose access to a product or your library", and someone with a large library does not have a leg to stand on.

Even if a lawsuit was successful, a bankruptcy of the cloud provider can render all the licensed content gone.

This is why people should have local, un-DRM-ed copies of their media they have purchased. It would take a lot more than just a delete to remove access from a library of physical media.

Re:TFA is all and good... but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35785144)

Valve is slightly different. In the VERY plain english agreement you agree to upon joining, certain behavior warrants banning. You are able to install and play your games on ANY machine, anywhere in the world in trade for not being a douchebag. Do you realize how much you have to do to get a VAC ban? Even then you can still access the game, just not play multiplayer.

Every VAC ban is subject to dispute and anyone who takes the time to dispute it usually wins a reprieve. If you're referring to the poor bastards who tried to cheat on blackops and suddenly realized they were blocked from every game that uses that engine... they deserve it. I have yet to see anyone with a repeatable, verifiable unwarranted VAC ban.

The only other case that you get your account locked is if you charge back a charge on your credit card after accessing a game. I ran into this with Medal of Honor and it not functioning on 10% of the games out there. Valve banned my account until I called them and we settled things. Valve is a good company, the DRM that you experience is mostly EA and Ubisoft with their call in and such. That needs to end... so on that issue we are agreed.

You do make a good point about cloud providers going bankrupt and losing your content. Backups backups backups backups. If a content provider such as Valve went under, it would be relatively easy to access your content independent of steam (valves software). You select offline mode. Unfortunately most multiplayer content is hosted on controlled servers and managed in terrible ways that are independent of Valve. DRM and this server dependency (see MW2 and that crap fest) is what the target should be.

I've never heard of VAC or Valve.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35785282)

Valve is slightly different. In the VERY plain english agreement you agree to upon joining, certain behavior warrants banning.

I can guaranty that somewhere in their EULA it states something like this "We reserve the right to change this agreement at anytime without notice."

Re:TFA is all and good... but (1)

AaronMK (1375465) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785176)

I am not overly concerned about the content that is on my shelf being DRM-free. I am more concerned about that DRM being too big to fail. Examples: Blu-ray is cracked, but they have to live with it because it's just not practical to replace everyone's players and movie collections to close that hole. Same with the HDMI private key being out in the open. I just want devices for playback to be prevalent, and able to work with the content on my shelf even if I never had an Internet connection in my life.

That being said, all the other points you made are exactly why I will NEVER "purchase" a "cloud" copy of anything. It is reasoning that translates to the average joe pretty well, and they just might realize that for what they've spent on their purchases, they could have rented a stream the number of times they ended up watching them for a lot cheaper.

Re:TFA is all and good... but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35785228)

Being of the younger generation, personally I've given up on ownership of any media. I use Netflix, resell my PS3 discs when I'm done playing with them (and keep only cheap PSN games that I buy), and don't own any DVD's or books. I spend about $400 a year on renting content, and haven't looked back. I no longer have to devote a bunch of money or space for my collection, and I figure it saves me about $600+ a year while still being totally legal. I miss not being able to play old games or see old movies I had a small degree, but that is more than offset by the convenience of saving space and having extra cash. I wasn't a big fan of the transition, but it's pretty nice now that I'm used to it.

Re:TFA is all and good... but (1)

dakkon1024 (691790) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785276)

Perhaps, or is that not different then hording money in your matress?

Re:TFA is all and good... but (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785316)

With books, someone would have to enter my residence unauthorized with a fairly large truck and haul stuff out. Similar with DVDs...It would take a lot more than just a delete to remove access from a library of physical media.

A simple false accusation of a 'computer' crime and a rubber stamped warrant can deal with that quite nicely. Now it's 'authorized'. No conviction required. Yay RICO and 'discovery'.

Re:TFA is all and good... but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35785398)

I was thinking about stuff like this just yesterday.

Let's juxtapose the "right" of "content owners" (those who have created) to copyright and make money for eternity, including descendents and "estates" with the "right" of "content owners" (those who have purchased) to not "own" what they have bought or have the ability to pass it down to descendents.

Re:TFA is all and good... but (1)

brainzach (2032950) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785516)

Valve is still widely successful despite having its potential problems.

Cloud providers don't have an interest in banning people because it will costs them lots of business. Large corporations put their trust into the cloud and any sign that they could lose or lock out the data, will cause them to run someone where else.

Valve can get away with it because it mainly punishes cheaters, which is in the interest of Valve and the majority of their users. If they start doing arbitrary bans, then it will cause people to flee .

There is risk of losing your physical content too and have to pay if you want to receive it again. If you are good at making backups and can host your own content, then cloud service is probably is a waste.

Others will find the convenience of paying for your content once and easily accessing it from anywhere to be worth the price of a cloud service.

I already use the cloud for all my data (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35784872)

Isn't that what /. journals are for???

WILL transform? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35784880)

This article sheds some light on how the cloud, along with subscription and on-demand services, will transform our perception of content access and ownership."

Or, it sheds light on how several large industry players hope and wish the cloud will transform our perception of content access and ownership. More likely, that transformation of believes will fail to materialize, and us humans will continue to mean the same thing we've always meant when we use the words 'buy' and 'own'.

Re:WILL transform? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35785314)

Should be more like HAS transformed. How's that copy of 1984 working on your Kindle these days, anyway? Or that latest singleplayer but needs-to-always-be-connected-to-authenticate game?

This ship has sailed, because a bunch of idiots bought things like that. Increasingly content will _only_ be offered this way in the future.

Cloud is dangerous, remember folks! (-1, Flamebait)

hoxor (2038984) | more than 3 years ago | (#35784892)

I lost my mailbox (and some very important data) because google lost it accidentally [goo.gl]

Re:Cloud is dangerous, remember folks! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35784940)

Goatse...

Re:Cloud is dangerous, remember folks! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35785002)

Nice Goatse.

Re:Cloud is dangerous, remember folks! (1)

IDontWantToRTFM (911169) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785018)

NSFW Goatse link!

I don't get the appeal (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35784902)

When there are relatively cheap 32Gig microSD cards on the market, along with tiny mp3 players, I don't really get the appeal of streaming. Portable devices are good because you can carry them around. Being a slave to a data connection seems like taking a step backwards.. like when we only had broadcast TV and couldn't record anything.

Bad idea. Content dies in five years (2)

Animats (122034) | more than 3 years ago | (#35784906)

The problem is that content stored on someone else's server, or authorized from it, seems to go away within five years. Often less. That's happened with Circuit City's DIVX (1998-1999), Microsoft's PlaysForSure (2004-2008), WalMart Music (2007-2008), and seems to be about to happen to Microsoft's Zune. Yes, there's usually some way to pry the content loose, but it's usually difficult, unsupported, and won't be done by most consumers.

Of course, you can't sell used "cloud" content, and you can't play it on an unapproved device. You're caught between the service going bust and your devices becoming obsolete.

Bad idea.

Re:Bad idea. Content dies in five years (1)

TheVoice900 (467327) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785348)

That's why I think subscription services are the way to go. I have no qualms with using a service like Netflix or Rdio, even though the content isn't "owned" by me and could disappear at any time. If that happens, who cares? I'm paying a few dollars a month for the access. If either service were to suddenly vaporize, I'd simply start using another service or just do something else with my money.

For the few dollars spent each month on their streaming services I no longer have to worry about storing my media and I can listen / watch a much broader selection than if I was buying things separately.

Re:Bad idea. Content dies in five years (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35785384)

Or worse... they change the T&C on you. Suddenly that movie you bought will vanish unless you pay a "maintainance fee".

What they will say, "In this economic climate, we are forced to add a maintainance fee for any content you have stored on our servers".

What you will hear, "I am altering the deal. Pray I do not alter it any further."

Re:Bad idea. Content dies in five years (2)

afidel (530433) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785434)

With Amazon it's just another way to access the mp3's you bought from them, not the only way.

More like the start of the Conversation. (1)

softWare3ngineer (2007302) | more than 3 years ago | (#35784914)

End of Content Ownership? Seems more like the start of a great discussion on ownership. This is what the public really need to get excited about a legitimate conversation on the subject, real implications about what the average person can or cant do with stuff we have always thought we owned.

Re:More like the start of the Conversation. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35785124)

"End of Content Ownership" is a slippery phrase. Makes me think of losing it on both ends, so all content is considered public domain once it is known/released/discovered.

The pot of soup that is the topic of what consumers think they own and what producers say consumers own has been simmering for years. Perhaps a few more years of stirring until it is finally ready. I am of the opinion that the producers will provoke the consumers first. Once they do though, the topic will fade away fast. The content producers control how content is shown or not shown to the majority afterall.

No, no it doesn't (1)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 3 years ago | (#35784968)

This article sheds some light on how the cloud, along with subscription and on-demand services, will transform our perception of content access and ownership.

If you put your stuff in the cloud you dont own it. Period. Full Stop. You're just licensing it. If you stop paying, your stuff will disappear. That's the opposite of ownership.

Furthermore, none of his supposed points are actually advantages of the cloud, just advantages of digitized content, the cloud is just one of a myriad of storage and distribution methods.

Ownership will become an anathema as consumers realize they don't want to risk losing content as they switch services

How's the cloud supposed to fix that? I can't switch from amazon to netflix and expect all my stuff to still work.

The end of a era (1)

dakkon1024 (691790) | more than 3 years ago | (#35784990)

So my email is indexed, my searches are indexed, what I like to watch and listen is now also indexed, nearly a complete profile. How long until profile algorithms accurately to predict purchases, crime, disease, etc? This is the “Age of the Profile” That is to say that a complete picture of every connected person will soon be available. An interesting time indeed...

Inevitable with zero-cost duplication (5, Interesting)

AcidPenguin9873 (911493) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785012)

When IP can be reproduced and distributed at zero cost, ownership and property rights have little to no meaning. People who use the term "imaginary property" have been saying this for at least 10 years, especially on Slashdot.

Well, this is now content creators agreeing with them. "Imaginary property" advocates have been saying for years that IP rights holders are free to exercise their exclusive rights to that IP by not selling it to anyone, thus maintaining their exclusive copy of the IP. (Implied there is that no one will get to actually experience the IP, making it useless as a source of income). Well, this is them doing half of that. Because copyright (i.e. exclusive distribution rights) is impossible to enforce, they are simply going to stop distributing the IP in "here's a copy of it, please don't copy it again and give it away" form, which basically stopped working over 10 years ago. They are instead providing access to their IP behind these cloud-based services which, in addition to providing the content itself, provide added value in ways such as organizing the content and allowing access from many devices/places/times. For most people, the content plus the additional value offered by these services is enough to get them to subscribe (i.e. pay). This allows the IP creators to continue making money from their IP. By the way, this goes for software too: think Steam.

This is in opposition to the "imaginary property" advocates that maintain that all content should be free-as-in-beer because it doesn't cost any money to duplicate, damned be the (sometimes significant) creation costs. Most of them use free-as-in-freedom arguments like "I own this, I should be able to do what I want with it", or arguments such as "I hate the RIAA/MPAA so I'm screwing them." Personally, I hate the RIAA/MPAA as much as the next guy, but what I hate even more is justifying pirated content by saying "well I'm just screwing the RIAA/MPAA". Guess what? You're also screwing the content creator, whose work you apparently want enough to pirate.

Re:Inevitable with zero-cost duplication (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35785180)

Yeah, I love the people who claim that a movie isn't worth 8 dollars at Best Buy so they'll just pirate it. Sorry guys, if the price is free no one is going to be able to beat it. So with that kind of logic in place there is no way to defeat piracy. At the same time these same people are fundamentally claiming that it's worth risking thousands in fines so they don't have to pay 8 dollars to BB. Where does the nonsense end?

Re:Inevitable with zero-cost duplication (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785544)

These 2 items are not identical. The main differentiator besides price is that in fact the pirated version is a BETTER copy. Its just the movie, there are no ads, and no unskippable sections, etc. I would also like to point out that no individual has had to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines. Getting a judgement and getting actually paid are VASTLY different things.

Re:Inevitable with zero-cost duplication (1)

radtea (464814) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785580)

So with that kind of logic in place there is no way to defeat piracy.

Excatly. Right. "There is no way to defeat piracy". End of story.

Big Media are flailing around like mad trying to make water not wet and bytes incapable of being copied. None of their solutions will work. Ergo, their business model is doomed. The ability to get rich creating mass-produced art was an artefact of a narrow technological window, between Chaucer's invention of the printing press and Al Gore's creation of the Internet.

It only meant really big money in the past 150 years, and it is now over, done, dead, buried. It is an ex-business model.

Re:Inevitable with zero-cost duplication (1)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785306)

When IP can be reproduced and distributed at zero cost, ownership and property rights have little to no meaning. People who use the term "imaginary property" have been saying this for at least 10 years, especially on Slashdot.

Well, this is now content creators agreeing with them. "Imaginary property" advocates have been saying for years that IP rights holders are free to exercise their exclusive rights to that IP by not selling it to anyone, thus maintaining their exclusive copy of the IP. (Implied there is that no one will get to actually experience the IP, making it useless as a source of income). Well, this is them doing half of that. Because copyright (i.e. exclusive distribution rights) is impossible to enforce, they are simply going to stop distributing the IP in "here's a copy of it, please don't copy it again and give it away" form, which basically stopped working over 10 years ago. They are instead providing access to their IP behind these cloud-based services which, in addition to providing the content itself, provide added value in ways such as organizing the content and allowing access from many devices/places/times. For most people, the content plus the additional value offered by these services is enough to get them to subscribe (i.e. pay). This allows the IP creators to continue making money from their IP. By the way, this goes for software too: think Steam.

This is in opposition to the "imaginary property" advocates that maintain that all content should be free-as-in-beer because it doesn't cost any money to duplicate, damned be the (sometimes significant) creation costs. Most of them use free-as-in-freedom arguments like "I own this, I should be able to do what I want with it", or arguments such as "I hate the RIAA/MPAA so I'm screwing them." Personally, I hate the RIAA/MPAA as much as the next guy, but what I hate even more is justifying pirated content by saying "well I'm just screwing the RIAA/MPAA". Guess what? You're also screwing the content creator, whose work you apparently want enough to pirate.

I agree with the majority of what you posted except for the very last statement. Time and time again, it has been shown that the content creator receives very little for their efforts. The publishers, though, whether in the music industry, print industry or film industry, receive most of the reward. It's very similar to the plight of a farmer. Even when a bushel of wheat goes up in value, it is the middleman who receives most of the benefit, not the actual producers/farmer.

All that said, I do not condone pirating stuff. I just wanted to point out that your final argument does not actually support your position.

Or (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35785324)

Maybe we need to accept that sharing ideas is necessary otherwise innovation will become stagnant. If content duplication is so easily possible, we need to adapt and provide services and products that are necessary and cannot be easily duplicated or replaced. We need to look at the common good and make progress, not just make money, otherwise our problems will just pile up and desperation and greed will become the primary motivators and things won't get any better.

Re:Inevitable with zero-cost duplication (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35785394)

Well, this is now content creators agreeing with them. "Imaginary property" advocates have been saying for years that IP rights holders are free to exercise their exclusive rights to that IP by not selling it to anyone, thus maintaining their exclusive copy of the IP. (Implied there is that no one will get to actually experience the IP, making it useless as a source of income). Well, this is them doing half of that. Because copyright (i.e. exclusive distribution rights) is impossible to enforce, they are simply going to stop distributing the IP in "here's a copy of it, please don't copy it again and give it away" form, which basically stopped working over 10 years ago.

Bully for them. Here is me not listening to/watching their "content". The day I don't own physical copies of books/film/music is the day I stop "consuming" the stuff. No skin off my nose. There are plenty of things to do with my life besides "consume" "content".

This is in opposition to the "imaginary property" advocates that maintain that all content should be free-as-in-beer because it doesn't cost any money to duplicate, damned be the (sometimes significant) creation costs. Most of them use free-as-in-freedom arguments like "I own this, I should be able to do what I want with it", or arguments such as "I hate the RIAA/MPAA so I'm screwing them." Personally, I hate the RIAA/MPAA as much as the next guy, but what I hate even more is justifying pirated content by saying "well I'm just screwing the RIAA/MPAA". Guess what? You're also screwing the content creator, whose work you apparently want enough to pirate.

Fuck 'em. I'm an American. We have been steeped in a culture of rampant self-interest. It's dog-eat-dog, or haven't you heard? Who gives a fuck about some poor starving artist? Take what you can get, by any means possible. That's what we read in the papers and watch on the nightly news. Government does it. Business does it. We were taught by the best. So, don't go preaching ethics around here, buddy.

this is a classic problem (2)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785026)

separating content from the application is the best design as you can improve the application. Look at all the different programs and innovations that happened with the mp3 file format. Now when you get vendor lock-in formats or only streaming you don't get any of this innovation.

Amazon (1)

fermion (181285) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785028)

I got a bit annoyed at Amazon because it would not let me download my content from the clouddisk thingy. This effectively means that I am buying content for a personal streaming radio station. Compare this to netflix wher for $10 a month I access to all sorts of movie streaming, and many more on physical disk. I don't know where the value is. I pay for retail music, but cannot put it where I want. For those who say that content ownership is not in jeopardy, this is clearly an attempt to get users to pay huge amounts to license content without any real ownership rights. Additionally, I can't get streaming to work. Netflix is no problem, Hulu has few problems, Amazon is bust.

It would make more sense, if we are not going to be able to download music to any device, to just have a streaming service of everything in the Amazon collection.

Re:Amazon (1)

aenea (34844) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785088)

What are you talking about? Amazon allows you to download content from the clouddisk thingy.

Maybe (1)

JackSpratts (660957) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785040)

When The Cloud matches my HD-based content serving home cloud I might consider it, but until then it's just so quick, easy and customizable to rip and stream my own stuff than to navigate all the content hosting websites. I do use NetFlix and their so-called instant streaming, but as of yet it's no match for a physical DVD (or ISO of same) quality and feature wise, so much so that I generally grab a torrent for a better viewing experience the next time I watch it, even though I already pay via subscription (which is kind of like TIVOing HBO or something I suppose).

We may be the last ones to relate to shows as physical items, but it'll be a long while I think before no one else does.

They don't want you do stream it. (1)

DragonTHC (208439) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785050)

They're offering that as an alternative.

You can still download it if you like. But if you download it, you have to upload it again to be a part of your amazon cloud collection.

Re:They don't want you do stream it. (1)

night_flyer (453866) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785188)

Unless they changed it in the last day, the content you download from Amazon's cloud is still on the cloud to download again.

Stop Bandwidth Limits (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35785054)

I do not mind streaming content or even a steam based client that holds all my games available for me to download at a moment of my choosing. What I do mind is these big name ISP companies who are making money hand over fist for our internet access already or they wouldn't be doing it for the price it is now deciding that a monthly limit with overages sounds like a good idea. This is just a scheme to make more money off of us and control what we are allowed to do. And I say no good sir!

The end, the end, everybody says that... (-1, Troll)

labradioctiverat (2037804) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785060)

Slashdot appears to run out of good articles recently.... You rather read about a guy that created world first solar powered rocket [freeblogspot.org]
How much content users generate? How much content is worth anything?
What that article is about?

Re:The end, the end, everybody says that... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35785186)

goat.se link

good and bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35785114)

there will be some bad parts about this like subscription fees but it will be nice to have the ability to watch my content on any device, anywhere I am. I just wish there was a save feature to watch it later and they don't go nuts with fees.

No need to own. (1)

wcrowe (94389) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785118)

There is no reason to own this kind of content. When access is ubiquitous, and cost is negligible, ownership becomes kind of redundant.

The Cloud, and my handy Peta-Byte drive (2)

paulsnx2 (453081) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785138)

Somewhere around 2015 to 2020, at our current rate of advances over the last 40 years, we can expect to have storage devices that hold Peta-Bytes of storage. (http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/20/petabyte-disks-coming-in-5-years/) That's a 1000 TB drives for the same cost as your TB drive today.

Yes, streaming from the cloud is critical to this transformation. You have to be able to share information.

But who says we will not be able to back up the cloud? That we will have to rely on the cloud to exchange truly *huge* amounts of data?

By 2020, $100 should buy you a drive that would hold as much as **14 years** of HD Video. That's very likely to be more content that I will ever own, even should I manage to collect all my home videos and all the home videos of all my relatives and their friends.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_jaDcJXMqSL0/SvtiByNVLFI/AAAAAAAAALQ/oEUZfyV3IY8/s1600-h/FutureStorage.JPG)

The attempts by the telecommunications companies to restrict the internet to low quality videos of kittens, and by the MPAA and RIAA to eliminate content from the internet are doomed. It cannot happen. Even if the internet is destroyed by these forces, kids will pass around hard drives (or whatever tech replaces hard drives) that contain all useful content (indexed and searchable at high quality) by physically handing them off between each other if they have to.

Re:The Cloud, and my handy Peta-Byte drive (1)

Yaa 101 (664725) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785556)

The kids already do that, never underestimate sneakernet is my advice to all.

Uhhh... not nearly enough bandwidth for this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35785184)

Seriously -- all this streaming is for nought if there's not enough bandwidth to carry it all. People thought we had a problem w/ Netflix. When all these companies try to switch everyone to a streaming model, it'll just be giant fail.

'My' content? (2)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785214)

You guys don't read the small print, do you? Once you upload, it's no longer your content unless you have a few hundred thousand dollars sitting around to convince a judge otherwise.

Sometimes there isn't a cloud in the sky (5, Informative)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785236)

The problem with everything being in the cloud is that the government can make the cloud go away. Didn't slashdot just have a discussion on how the internet helped with the changes in Egypt? Once everything is in the cloud, what is to stop some government from cutting off its people from the cloud?

This proposal is a lot more than being able to stream Avatar to any device you want. It is really about who controls your access to information (your own or licensed).

As always, it's a mixed bag (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35785240)

Certainly for some or even most people, easy access was the only benefit of actual ownership in the first place, so cloud substitution is a no-brainer. But there are other advantages of ownership.

Quality: While streamed quality will inevitably improve, it will never exceed the quality of owned media. Even assuming image and audio quality reaches parity some day, the reliability of streaming will never reach that of local transports. Not to mention the superiority of local fast forward/rewind and other niceties.

Permanence: A nasty fight over distribution rights could prevent a title from being available for streaming in certain areas, even if it had been available once before. If you own it you never have to worry about whether or not you can watch it later.

Multiple editions: There are multiple cuts of movies, and plenty of cases where the most recent edition isn't necessarily the best. We're not just talking Star Wars here--Cinema Paradiso, Blood Simple, E.T., etc. How many different cuts of the same film will streaming services offer? I'm guessing one under most cases, maybe two under extraordinary circumstances. If you own it you can watch the version you want.

Extras: Some of the extras on physical media are actually worthwhile on occasion.

As I said before, most people probably don't care about any of this. But these are nevertheless benefits of ownership that some people do care about.

You DO own the content with Amazon's cloud (1)

mattack2 (1165421) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785286)

But with Amazon's cloud, you DO own the content.. it's all your content that you are streaming... and you can download any of the items there.

(BTW, I have only played with it for a few minutes, and had Amazon put a couple of free songs of the day there.)

Complete NO! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35785336)

I rather have a copy that I can move to my laptop, phone, whatever... I want access locally. I don't want to pay extra for "streaming" from somewhere when I can open it locally.

iTunes and others don't want you to keep anything local, as this method gives them COMPLETE CONTROL over WHO READS, LISTENS, WATCHES WHAT - not only that, they can also get all the data from specific, identifiable persons. I would say, this gives them even bigger value than the actual revenue they collect from streaming.

Most of you guys never heard or forgot already, that a prominent German terrorist group in the seventies was able to avoid police for a long time... until someone had a simple idea: let's check the library records, who borrowed certain books...

You really don't have to be a terrorist to see why you never want this content through the cloud... Hitler and Stalin couldn't have been happier to have this...

Cost to watch my own content (1)

nilloc (678273) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785444)

If I store my content in the cloud, who pays for my bandwidth when my kid wants to watch "Bamba" every night before bed?

Re:Cost to watch my own content (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35785526)

If I store my content in the cloud, who pays for my bandwidth when my kid wants to watch "Bamba" every night before bed?

Man your kids really like Ritchie Valens, huh?

The lesson here (1)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785530)

Only buys things you can actually OWN. Everything else can go to hell.

scam article (1)

rhizome (115711) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785574)

Am I the only one detecting the obvious astroturfing in a story purporting to equate some ebook generator called "24symbols" with Amazon, Sony and Google?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?