HBO Embraces the Concept of 'Newspeak'

[Tuckerfan]

DRM is such an ugly word.

According to a report in Broadcasting & Cable, HBO CTO Bob Zitter has said that he believes that consumers would most likely accept the concept of DRM if it was called something different.

Zitter feels the technology should be marketed in a way that would let users feel they could “use content in ways they haven’t before.” He suggests the term “Digital Consumer Enablement” instead.

Oh yeah, now I don’t feel a bit upset when I discover that the CD I just bought has loaded spyware onto my computer, thus rendering it vulnerable to hackers. :rolleyes:

[athelas]

As well you shouldn’t. You’re being “enabled”!

[DrDeth]

WTF is DRM?

[Tuckerfan]

@DrDeth

WTF is DRM?

Digital Rights Management AKA copyright protection. The stuff that keeps you from copying a CD you’ve bought on to your iPod so you can listen to it, but doesn’t prevent you from downloading it illegally off the net for free.

[DoctorJ]

Huh? I’d be willing to bet most people don’t know what “DRM” means.

Zitter feels the technology should be marketed in a way that would let users feel they could “use content in ways they haven’t before.”

Listening to a CD with a red hot poker shoved straight up my ass would be using that content in a way I hadn’t before–doesn’t mean I’d prefer it that way.

[GuanoLad]

Save us from the stupid people. Does he really think that changing its name will make it any less irritating and interfering? Nobody cares what it’s called, what they care about is consuming their legally bought item without obstruction.

[Marley23]

Bad enough that it’s Newspeak - “enablement?” What the fuck?

@GuanoLad

Does he really think that changing its name will make it any less irritating and interfering? Nobody cares what it’s called, what they care about is consuming their legally bought item without obstruction.

I wish it worked that way, but you know marketing makes a difference. Most people don’t know what DRM is. All the companies have to do is market it so that enough people don’t get annoyed with it until it’s already been implemented. After that, there’s no going back. Maybe there would be a little bit of compromise, but they’ll substantially get what they want.

[Shecky]

Listening to a CD with a red hot poker shoved straight up my ass would be using that content in a way I hadn’t before–doesn’t mean I’d prefer it that way.

DoctorJ, this is going to become my new sig line.

[awldune]

This reminds me of the Macrovision logo on DVDs, which says something to the extent of ‘Quality ensured by Macrovision!’ Gee, thanks Macrovision!!

[Diceman]

Zitter feels the technology should be marketed in a way that would let users feel they could “use content in ways they haven’t before.”

Nice idea, except that DRM does the exact opposite: it restricts users from doing things that they’ve been able to do before.

[Bosstone]

It’s enablement only in the sense that companies are pants-pissing scared to release content without maintaining control over it, so without DRM there would be no content available at all.

I’m really looking forward to seeing how successful the DRM-free music from EMI will be on iTunes.

[KneadToKnow]

Oh, it’s enabling alright.

In the “driving me to drink” sense. I’ve lost count now of how many things I’ve DVRed on my PC and then tried to burn to DVD so I could watch in the living room only to find out that I can’t.

Glad I’ve still got a VCR.

[teemingONE]

doubleplusungood

[Tuckerfan]

Gonzales calls for life in prison for copyright violators.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has proposed legislation that would make the DMCA look almost just. Among other things, the law would make attempted infringement a crime, and send some infringers to jail for life. C|Net’s intrepid Declan McCullagh does a great job calling attention to highlights from the legislation, which Gonzales has dubbed The Intellectual Property Protection Act of 2007 [PDF].