Conclusions

Abstract

In Chap. 2, we built the case as to why digital video should be protected. Creating movies and TV shows is expensive. The cost of creating them is constantly increasing. The creators and investors expect a fair return on investment. Traditionally, copyright laws have provided an incentive to create with the promise of fair reward. Unfortunately, content digitalization has drastically facilitated piracy, online or in other forms. Although digitalization generates serious cost reduction for production and distribution, the incentive to invest proposed under the umbrella of copyright is in danger. The first aim of content protection may be to enforce fair reward by addressing digital piracy. Analog cultural goods often were offered in versioned packages. A song could be packaged in an album on 33 RPM LP records or audio tapes or as a single song on a 45 RPM LP record. Digital goods could easily offer such versioning if there were a way to create excludability. This is the second aim of video content protection. Furthermore, it is paramount for video content to be protected before its official release date: an early leak represents serious losses for content owners; hence, the B2B business needs efficient content protection solutions. Unfortunately, current solutions sometimes introduce severe restrictions on the use of digital goods. Consumers, being used to user-friendly analog goods, sometimes feel that these digital goods’ restrictions are unfair and unnecessary. This resentment can be loudly expressed. In retaliation, some consumers have deferred to alternate unauthorized sources of digital goods that do not impose usage limitations. This is increasingly putting at risk digital distribution.