Reason Magazine on DRM 161
swankypimp writes "The new issue of Reason magazine has an article entitled "Hollywood vs. the Internet: Why Entertainment Companies Want To Hack Your Computer." The author discusses the watermarking of digital television as a springboard to Digital Rights Management on all consumer electronics and computers (as in the recently proposed Hollings bill). While light on the tech speak, it is a good summary of the political agendas behind copyright protection intended for those of us who don't constantly check the "YRO" section."
I'm impressed (Score:1)
I'm surprised and impressed (Score:1, Flamebait)
Usually I avoid believing much of anything I read in Reason, as it usually just prints libertarian propaganda, but this time I'm glad I checked it out.
The flaw in the current stance (Score:3, Interesting)
Isn't this the whole problem with the stance that "hollywood" is taking? Most people will happily pay for content and the few that won't won't destroy the industry. IIRC Home taping Didn't Kill music no matter how often we were told it would.
End of media as we know it.... (Score:3, Insightful)
An interesting point is made by a News Corporation technologist - "music lovers already have gotten out of the habit of paying for records, which means an end to big profits and thus an end to big record companies", and he goes on to say that within five years the music industry will be a cottage industry. Is this really such a bad thing? Part of the reason why MP3 distribution has become so widespread is the general feeling of poor value-for-money associated with buying CDs. It's difficult to feel particularly guilty about copyright infringement when details of how the money you pay gets distributed are publicly available.
Personally, I'd prefer to pay money directly to a band that I like for their material, rather than line the pockets of record companies and distributors. While historically they might have served a useful purpose in increasing consumer awareness of the bands on their label, and in introducing them to wider markets, that function has been obsoleted by file sharing.
Media companies should just resign themselves to the fact that the days of large profits are waning, and instead concentrate on ways of inducing people to buy, rather than copy material - lower prices would help, for a start, but also bonus materials. By including, for example, printed material, with DVDs or CDs, it becomes more difficult for someone to obtain more than a partial copy of the work in question, so people would be more likely to buy (assuming the lower price was in effect also).
Re:End of media as we know it.... (Score:1)
Radical advances in technology can destroy industries. It has happened before. It will happen again. The only way to stop it is to hold back the technology, and that's exactly what they're trying to do.
Re:End of media as we know it.... (Score:2)
Except that they are not trying to hold back technology (which would be something like Japan banning all firearms). Instead they want technology to only be used in ways which make doing what they were doing before easier for them only.
Re:End of media as we know it.... (Score:2)
Maybe if someone can come up with a sane DRM scheme then artists will be able to distribute their music for profit under a smaller label.
The problem is that we would have to destroy Clear Channel since they basically control the radio waves (and promotions).
At least we will be able to filter out those artists who are simply out for cash, the ones who are played on your local KISS FM for example.
Re:End of media as we know it.... (Score:2, Informative)
They have always thought that creation meant distribution and, therefore, by controlling distribution they controlled price (creating scarcity). But the internet has shown that distribution does not need them any more.
If they are to continue to create content. Think about it, the record companies _do_ pay for content to be created, record deals, producing records etc etc. By extension, the film and television companies are in the same boat. If they are to continue to create content then it must be in a more fiscally responsible way. It is not so easy to subsidies "CrapBand01" with the proceeds from U2's latest album. This is a good thing (TM) since it means that I, who does not like "CrapBand01", (nor U2 for that matter) do not have to pay for their shite content to be produced since the content creater will have to act as the agent of the artist to collect on their behalf and the artist will (might ?) receive a fiduciary relationship from the content commissioner to pay them the receipts they have collected on their behalf. Where is the profit??? well the collection of that money and the management services for which the bands are currently charged are _still_ as valuable as they ever were (how valuable is for the fair market to decide) and so are legitimate expenses to be deducted from the receipts.
Re:End of media as we know it.... (Score:2)
Only in the sense of the record companies providing a mechanism and venue for that creation. It's the song writers, musicians and singers who actually do the creation...
By extension, the film and television companies are in the same boat.
There is often a more obvious demarkation between production and distribution companies here.
Re:End of media as we know it.... (Score:2)
But they might not be "top dog" if they did that. They like being top dog, therefor will do anything possible to defend that position.
Whilst there are historical precedents for technology advancements rendering an entire section of business obsolete? There don't appear to be any examples of using the law to bend new technology into only working for status quo busines.
No support for pre-DRM media formats. (Score:5, Interesting)
The digital videos they shot in 1999 may be unpayable on their desktop and laptop computers.
This is better further elaborated in the following passage...
There are some problems with this scheme. If Prince-ton computer scientist Edward Felten is right, a watermark that's invisible to the audience yet easily detected by machines will be relatively easy to remove. To put it simply, if you can't see it, you won't miss it when it's gone. Which is why the components of new home entertainment systems probably would have to be designed not to play unwatermarked content. Otherwise, all you've done is develop an incentive for both inquisitive hackers and copyright "pirates" to find a way to strip out the watermarks. But if the new entertainment systems won't play content without watermarks, they won't work with old digital videos or MP3s.
Now assuming the above is true and consider the worst case scenario of this bill coming to pass. Would this mean all those legitimate MP3s I downloaded from Epitonic [epitonic.com] and the Star Wars fan films [theforce.net] would no longer be playable on new hardware since they lacked a watermark?
If this the case how would free content continue to exist and operate in this system, as they would obviously have to use watermarks just like copyrighted works if they want to be playable on the new hardware DRM systems. Ofcourse this sort of thing would piss of consumers and even some content providers.
Re:No support for pre-DRM media formats. (Score:1)
However, you can't be assured that the encryption will prevent someone from taking the decoded content and then pass it along.
Fortunately, the company I was doing it for stole the idea without realising the weak points in the system.
Today, 2 companies use it in the NZ banking system and the random number generator is still open to any script kiddie who knows their IP number.
Digital Rights Management is a joke, only people who live in countries that prohibit strong crypto believe it can live up to the hype.
Re:No support for pre-DRM media formats. (Score:5, Interesting)
If the DMCA is any indication, they will stretch this law as far as they can. Don't forget that one of the very things the law states is that the devices must not play unauthorized, copyrighted material. Now, in the distant future, we may have computers so powerful that they can tell what media are copyrighted by checking some huge database -- and they'll probably also know what you're licensed to see and hear (and maybe taste, touch, and smell). Thankfully, computers aren't that powerful yet. So, the only way to keep people from stripping out copyrights or preventing them from playing that illegally copied DVD is to simply disallow the viewing of any non-watermarked media.
That might be fine for a new DVD-ish player, but it won't be fine when it's your new HDTV. Since your old home movies aren't watermarked, it will see them as "pirated" material. Basically, if this law passes, all your current media will be obsolete overnight, and you'll have to go buy new, watermarked copies of all of it, all over again, if you want to use it on the latest equipment.
Free content would have to go away. Why? Because no one could play it without the watermark. And, if you can embed your watermark on your home movies, source code, machine code, etc, then it's just a simple matter to embed your watermark directly into the pirated copy that you'd like to watch. You'd just pick up a ripped copy with no watermark off usenet, and then embed your own. So, the only people watching old or new original content will be those with the foresight to keep their old equipment.
In a sick sort of way, I almost hope one of these laws passes. It'll piss a ton of Joe Sixpacks off, and I'll make a killing on ebay before they finally overturn the law.
Re:No support for pre-DRM media formats. (Score:3, Interesting)
SO, you spend all of the endless amounts of cash necessary to replace this entire pile of equipment and media, and then you spend it again and again every month, because now you don't own any of it in the free and clear, but you "license" it instead and must keep paying into the central license database in order to have access to any of it -- if you don't pay, you will suddenly find yourself "securely" cut off from what was, once upon a time, media and equipment you had already paid for in the free and clear.
And meanwhile, the few fat, rich men at the top get richer, watching their personal wealth go from $10bn to $30bn to $60bn to $120bn to $240bn as the "emerging markets" around the world happily donate their (very limited) cash to the same licensing system in order to participate in western pop culture on the one hand and get what was once a free flow of news and information on the other.
Re:No support for pre-DRM media formats. (Score:2)
Here's the dirty little secret Big Media doesn't want you to hear: You can't replace the entire pile! Off the top of my head, I can think of two reasons why:
I leave you with this frightening unintended(?) side effect. In a worst-case scenario, the United States government will be responsible for approving the manufacture and sale of cameras. Orwell is already spinning in his grave. This should have him redlining a Formula One engine.
Free as in warez or speech? (Score:3, Insightful)
If I can't record music or videa without clearing it through a media company and getting that "watermark" then my First Amendment rights have been trampled.
Forget consumers, copy protected CD's and even Fair Use [it is copyright ] - forget all of those Simpsons episodes you recorded from TV.
These systems are un-Constitutional because they limit your ability to express yourself where you see fit. If it's a grass roots campaign or a song your band is working on - you can't do it!
Just reminds me of this Simpsons song [esquilax.com] that is on mp3 here [croftononline.com].
It will take an Amendment! And like Heston, they will get my DVD/VCD/MP3 player from my cold dead hands.
Not even an amendment... (Score:2)
One technicality I'd like to point out. You said:
These systems are un-Constitutional because they limit your ability to express yourself where you see fit...
It will take an Amendment! And like Heston, they will get my DVD/VCD/MP3 player from my cold dead hands.
Actually, since the First Amendment begins with "Congress shall make no law...", they can't override that even with a Constitutional amendment. It would require the repeal of the First Amendment. Fat chance!
Them old crotchety white guys that started this place were pretty damn smart. (Too bad our ancestors ignored all their warnings and we became exactly what the Founding Fathers feared we would.)
Re:No support for pre-DRM media formats. (Score:1)
Free content could not exist, unless it were also simple to create the watermarks, to allow the content to be played. Maybe it will be as simple as dropping it off at the corner drugstore for "processing".
The ability to create the watermarks is what the proponents to this legislation would like to reserve to themselves.
Copyright is fundamentally at odds with free speech. Both are important, so both must be balanced. You can't have absolutes on either side.
I don't think we will go so far as to allow either one to completely override the other. But I do question how far out-of-whack the balance will get before each side realizes they can't live without the other.
Re:No support for pre-DRM media formats. (Score:2)
Another effect is that recording devices will be illegal. Yea there will probably be closed boxes with timeouts: they will not record watermarked data, but will add a watermark to data, and quit playing that data and erase it after a certain amount of time. But the ability to record your own entertainment and distribute it to friends (or strangers) will not be allowed, as these devices could be used to pirate content (by pointing the camera at the screen).
The real effect of this will of course not be to stop any piracy whatsoever (one stolen watermarking machine is all that is needed), but it will make it impossible for there to be any competing forms of legal distributed entertainment without contracting with the content industries. The RIAA will love this and I very much believe this is their ultimate goal.
I think we should be free to trade our stuff (Score:2, Interesting)
For example, I have an ebook [13 MB PDF] of The Hobbit & Lord of The Rings. I decided to buy Lord of The Rings because I wanted to read it in the middle of a forest my friend lives in.
I then decided to see the Lord of The Rings (1) movie a few times, because I like the story and I love to see New Zealand.
I have actually spent more than I would have if I only bothered to see the movie, so this piracy issue is rubbish spread by paranoid accountants.
[please note: I live in New Zealand & have been to places where LoTR was filmed]
Re:I think we should be free to trade our stuff (Score:1)
Then the other thing is, how do you get a new ebook in the middle of a forest ? It's not like the nice lady on the next farm can afford to go online for a few hours so that you can get an ebook.
A better example is MP3's, I have 6 days, 6 hours of stuff. I might buy some CD's if I find them in the stores, but I won't hold my breath waiting for the store to get that album I want.
They don't understand (Score:3, Insightful)
They don't seem to understand this point. Most digital consumers notice the irrelvancy of the "big record companies". What we want is direct support of the artist, and paying the artist for their work instead of the majority of a "CD" being used up in overhead. I think most will play fair, if the prices come down and the artist is more fiscally supported, not the farce that is going on now.
Re:They don't understand (Score:2)
This has always been the case whilst there are plenty of fans and fan organisations for singers, song writers and musicians has anyone ever heard of a fan club for a major record company? There might be fan clubs for certain record labels, but that is usually because they are strongly associated with specific artists, record producers, etc.
Re:They don't understand (Score:1)
Yes. Stockholders. Just because they pay for the privilege of ownership does not make their devotion to their cause any less than one where the support given is intangible appreciation ("love" or "adulation") or financial support in the form of purchasing gee-gaws from an artist.
Guac-foo
Copywrongs! (Score:5, Insightful)
Diferent kinds of content have diferent timetables, but all end with the content become "public domain" when that time ends.
Nowadays, the publishers are forfeiting they copyright obligations to the public in three ways:
a) Not re-publishing when the content becomes out of print (thrus, the copyright should fall back to either the author or the public domain if they fail to make a reprint - like 6 months to make it available again)
b) Not providing the non-crypted version for public domain (one can't be sure that the copyright owners will be around when the content becomes public domain and/or that the crypto used to certify the DRM is publicly available to allow a clear access to the content - and thrus not require reverse engenearing)
c) By limiting the usage in absurd ways, they are forbiding fair use of the content in ways that overstep consumer rights (like time-shift, format-shift, educational use, accessibilities use, usability oriented interfaces and much more).
Just my two cents...
Re:Copywrongs! (Score:1)
Yes. Copyright is a public-sanctioned and government-sustained monopoly allowing an entity the sole right to publish content. The copyright monopoly is also an enormous incentive for individuals to create content. This is content which has made all our lives much, much richer and which, I contend, would never have been created without that incentive.
The content production/sales process is also subject to extraordinary competitive market forces which have made content, by and large, available extremely inexpensively. If "Star Wars" had cost $1,000.00 a viewing, it would have failed in the marketplace to competing entertainment alternatives.
Consider also the increase in the diversity and quality of entertainment over a the lifetime of the U.S. copyright framework: What is the value of viewing "Star Wars" at home on your DVD player in surround sound? What would someone have paid for that experience 200 years ago?
"Diferent kinds of content have diferent timetables, but all end with the content become "public domain" when that time ends."
This is an assumption. The original copyright periods were, in the United States, relatively short. They are getting longer and longer. I foresee a day when there may well be unlimited copyright periods that are much like fee simple ownership of real estate. They may be bought and sold with ownership extending indefinitely so long as the copyright is not waived (a form of intellectual property escheat) at which point the property would slide into the public domain.
Like any form of property, copyright exists at the sufferance of government. Just ask China. In the United States, this means (for the non-cynical) that, ultimately, the copyright issue is in the hands of the people.
"Nowadays, the publishers are forfeiting they copyright obligations to the public in three ways:"
You should have included a caveat. Your sentence implies that a statement of fact follows. What actually follows is your extremely radical list of proposed revisions to existing copyright law which, IMHO, would largely destroy the market for expensive and capital-intensive creative enterprises such as "The Clone Wars" for instance.
Your suggestions include:
1. A duty to publish (what about Emily Dickinson - would you have stripped her of any copyright? When is the work finished and when does your duty to publish begin? Star Wars is arguably still unfinished.
2. A duty to publish in a format that you approve of rather than a format in which the owner and/or creator fo the content wants to publish content. Does this mean that George Lucas should have to use non-digital filming? This would potentially destroy innovation in presentation of films and video games.
3. Replacing long-established exceptions to copyright with a much more liberalized scheme which would reduce the ability of the content creator/owner to recoup an investment or to benefit from his/her work.
As I mentioned above, copyright is purely a function of government and your scheme could conceivably be implemented.
I believe that such a scheme would prevent the creation of unknown and magnificent works of art in the future. I have no way to prove this, but I strongly suspect that masterpieces such as Ben-Hur, 2001, Star Wars, The Godfather, Apocalypse Now, Indiana Jones, and LoTR would never have been created or would not have been executed as well in a world where your vision of copyright was in effect.
As a final note, content creators do not need to constrain themselves to traditional notions of copyright when creating works. RMS, among others, has made common a wonderful and valuable new way to use copyright law to encourage free distribution of intellectual property by practically mandating its free use as opposed to limiting that use.
Content creators who are intellectually opposed to our current forms of managing copyright are free to opt out of the current structure. I think it is notable that most don't and that most consumers of intellectual property are the ones complaining about copyright.
Be careful what you wish for.
Guac-foo.
Re:Copywrongs! (Score:1)
I think that the tech community needs to separate the ideas of copyright and technological restraints imposed by government fiat. The existence and respect of copyright laws does not need to involve restrictions on technological innovations. The two can coexist (and occasionally sparks will fly).
OTOH, I do not believe that content producers are under any obligation to cooperate or look the other way when people take their works without paying and make or distribute perfect, or nearly perfect, copies of those works without compensating the owner of the copyright.
I am not surprised that they are trying to use legislation to protect their property. I think it is misguided and stupid, but I am not surprised and I'm not offended. Small "r" republican government is messy.
Guac-foo.
Good, concise snippet... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you see people as consumers, you control access to what you offer, and you do everything you can to prevent theft, for the same reason supermarkets have cameras by the door and bookstores have electronic theft detectors. Allowing people to take stuff for free is inconsistent with your business model.
But if you see people as users, you want to give them more features and power at cheaper prices. The impulse to empower users was at the heart of the microcomputer revolution: Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak wanted to put computing power into ordinary people's hands, and that's why they founded Apple Computer. If this is your approach -- enabling people to do new things -- it's hard to adjust to the idea of building in limitations.
Very articulate framing of the issue: control versus empowerment. At first blush, this strikes as the best way to cast the issue to the general population. Nobody likes being controlled, and everyone likes being empowered.
The other issue, not mentioned in the article, is to manage the issue of the perception of theft. File sharing does not equate to theft. It does violate a license agreement in many cases, but it's not theft. File sharing creates more copies of the same thing, it does not move the thing from possession of person A to to possession of person B.
I think the tech world is at a distinct PR disadvantage here. RIAA, et al, have done a good job of equating the two. How can the debate be turned around, putting them on the defensive side of things: "This is not about theft, it's about your outdated, draconian licensing scheme designed to limit user empowerment?"
Re:Good, concise snippet... (Score:1)
one way to go about this would be to hire a bunch of lobbyists. Senator Disney was obviously bought by content industry lobbyists. Why can't the tech industry buy some congressmen to oppose the SSSCA? I don't see this so much as a PR problem as much as a who's got who in who's pocket problem.
Good article IMHO. (Score:5, Insightful)
I do have a problem with the idea that these copyright measures are able to slow things down (which I sorta read in the article), what you are dealing with is a social problem and not a technical problem, Hollywood can put all the protections they what on DVD's TV etc and some bloke will just crack it as soon as it comes out (the same situation that exists with software) and to date most of their efforts, like SDMI, have been pretty lame. As for legislation, laws are only as strong as a persons ablity to enforce them and who the hell is going to pay attention to one passed, which only benifits large companies, Where there is no policemen there is no speed limit, after all.
At the end of the day thing like this are only going to annoy honest people.
Technology has just moved along (like it does) and instead of trying to stop the march of progress media companies have to change there business models to the new market, and not try to maintain the statis quo. CD sales are lower today because time which should have been spent creating a new format to replace CD's was spent lowing production processes and now that industry is screwed. Thanks to DVD's the movie industry may survive (who the hell is going to bother dl a 8 gig movie over the internet when they can just buy it), plus there is the experience of seeing the thing at the local multi-plex.
At most, all that is going to happen is someone works out a way to link all the Tivo's together, but isn't that what cable TV is today? just repeats after repreats and WWF. If you can't work out a way to make money in a medium where consumers are doing all the work, and even go to the extent of limiting this type of market from developing, then what hope is there for you. Instead of putting your heads in the secure media sand you should jump on the P2P bandwagon.
Human rights (Score:2)
"only benefits large companies", is quite an interesting comment.
given that large companies only exist in either land e.g. there not real, Such laws seem to be selling Human rights away to a non-physical entity.
That's a very weird stance for a group, that is supposed to represent the people, to take.
Instead of addressing mass anarchic law breaking by 90%+ of the population shouldn't they be addressing the reason for such a large revolt i.e. The dismissal of human rights over the rights of non-existent entities.
DRM == Human rights (Score:1)
Bypassing DRM is also interesting, it effectivly says that you may not produce a tool that allows you to copy material 'unpacked' from a DRM system. now in the UK that can either be civil or criminal, in the case of criminal a media player that stores or sends 'unpacked' data in a digital form violates the law.
Re:Good article IMHO. (Score:3, Insightful)
Or maybe the problem is that they are simply putting the "wrong" music on the CDs. Anyway these companies still appear to be making rather huge profits...
At most, all that is going to happen is someone works out a way to link all the Tivo's together, but isn't that what cable TV is today? just repeats after repreats and WWF.
It's also about who controls what people watch. Viewers would ideally want to choose when they watch, quite likely viewers in the US could also do without having series shown out of order, appearently due to a rating system invented 40 years ago. But the advertising selling model for TV falls over without the broadcaster controlling both timing and geographic distribution.
If you can't work out a way to make money in a medium where consumers are doing all the work,
If anyone can work out a way to effectivly directly pay production companies then television broadcasting could become obsolete.
Re:Good article IMHO. (Score:2, Interesting)
Same with the PC industry. With a P4 or AthlonXP on your desk, the only reason you'd want to upgrade that in future is to run Quake VI at 100FPS or whatever. Either that or every Joe sixpack will run ERP, CRM, SETI@home and a Google node on their dekstop. CPU power is so excessive nowadays that old-timers complaining about Java applets' CPU usage get flamed. But the marketing works - the only person that would need a high-end Pentium 4 DDR is for doing hyperspace jump calulations, hence the latest Intel advertisements featuring aliens. Heck Rambus could tag on the ad that,
"Rambus is optimised for data-intensive SSE2 instructions, such as our hyperspace jump calculations, latency is your friend, latency loves you and therefore DDR hates you." Marketing, marketing, marketing, Bill Gates you really did it.
Bill Gates to Intel Chairman: Everyone is flaming the Itanium, calling it Itanic, you're a dumbass
Intel Chairman: Not if Windows XP2 only runs on IA-64 buddy
Bill Gates: Ha ha! You'll have to give me half your company before I even think about it
Intel Chairman: hmmm 40%
Bill Gates: 45% going going
Intel Chairman: we have a deal
Intel Chairman thinks *sucker* I'll give him the loss-making part of my company, I'll give him Celeron. Muh ah ah ahhh.
AMD Chairman: <Krusty the Clown laugh> Bwa ha! Ha ha ha! Ha huh, huhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh </Krusty the Clown laugh>
To adapt to the new world (if without effective enforcement of SSSSSSCA or CDBTTPPPTBA) the media companies would have to,
In light of all this, why is the entertainment industry pushing CDBTPPABA? They're forcing us to watch pathetic old reruns again and again, forcing us to wait years before the DVD is released in only certain DVD-regions, creating the demand for DeCSS in the first place. If all content was DivX'ed on first broadcast, then reruns would have no value, only fresh content would appeal to customers - a good thing.Pop quiz hotshot: this is an Informative, Interesting, Funny, Trolling flamebait. How do you mod? how do you mod?
Re:Good article IMHO. (Score:1)
Managers and salespeople use the same damn stupid semi-illiterate buzzwords over and over. You know a secret - all managers know that Unix is more scalable than Windows, because some geek told them and they remembered it, now with that information they can show they are GOD (that's why they're in sales). But do they actually know what Unix or Windows is? Nope, because otherwise they'll know how little they actually know and then won't have the confidence to talk sh** any more, in other words their career in sales will be over. So if you know something, say it over and over. If Jesus said to some bozo, "Hey I'm Jesus, and I'm the son of God. Well good to get that off my chest, I thnk I'll go sleep now" then we wouldn't have christianity. Read this [writerscafe.net] and be inspired. Amen.
good article (Score:3, Insightful)
The PC I have now plays DivX files, mp3's and everything else just fine. I download my share of media from the net, and I am sure if they start putting watermarks in TC shows, the warez community will find some way to strip it out and make it availalbe, but the downside is that the new pc's that come out after this watermarking technology will not allow you to play unwatermarked content. I will therefor keep my current working PC as an entertainment box. By the time this happens, my PC will probably not be the one I want to use on my desk anymore, but it is more than capable of playing Hi-Res divx, mp3's and such. Tis would be the time i set up my roll-your-own PVR
One final problem though. Tecnology overlap. they launch all of this new watermarked content. No one is going to have PCs capable of playing the content. Why would anybody buy a PC that can only play watermarked content before the content becomes availalbe. They would be unable to play any content since none of the exiting content would have watermarks. Also, after the content is available even if some people upgrade to the newer stuff, not everyone will unless there is a VERY compelling reason to ditch all thier old working content in favor of getting ONLY the new watermarked content.
Re:good article (Score:2, Insightful)
Ahh...the beauty of this woud be that the warez community would come up with a way to create the watermarks, and you could view the "pirated" content even on new computers. You just wouldn't be able to transfer or record your own original content (not your child's first steps, family reunions, or that cheesy home made movie you and your friends slapped together). Then we would truely be under control of the mega media corps! The next step: implant chips in everyone's head--just like in Syndicate Wars. Have a nice day. ;-)
Re:good article (Score:1)
Re:good article (Score:1)
Back alley shops building blackmarket computers from smuggled Tawainese mobos.
Scenario 2:
"You mean that if I have Windows XP 2005 on my computer I have to pay a dollar every time I read Slate, but if I have Redhat 12.0 I can watch every movie ever filmed from that server in Tobago for free?"
This could be fun.
The effects on home recording studios? (Score:2, Insightful)
As the article points out "Just as computers make it possible to create remarkably pristine images, they also make it possible to make remarkably pristine copies" .
By the same definition "Just as home pro audio equipment is capable of creating music, they also make it possible to duplicate music".
I remember the introduction of SCMS crippled DAT recorders, which effectively killed off a nice media for semi-pro musicians (D2D was too expensive then).
I can see the reluctance of studio hardware and software manufacturers to introduce this technology as it will clearly impact on sales, but will it mean the end of OpenSource applications because *you* can remove the DRM components?
Scary
Open Source and the DRM virus (Score:5, Insightful)
This is actually an interesting paradox. The whole philosophy of DRM, digital watermarks, etc. is to make it not just illegal to circumvent copyright, but impossible.
By this logic, the source code itself would need a watermark to prevent the removal of the DRM components -- but this would be no good if you could just strip it out before compiling, so the compilers would have to be rigged only to allow watermarked source code. Of course, then you'd have to make sure that people weren't running binaries made with the old compiler
Like a virus, mandatory DRM legislation would infect everything it touches. It might start with something seemingly innocuous, like music and movies -- but it would eventually consume software, hardware, and the very act of computation itself. I agree with the author that the DRM legislation being pushed by the "content" industry (and certain of our esteemed elected officials) would effectively destroy the digital computer as we know it.
Cheers,
IT
-1: Jon Katz-like title
Corprate inerta (Score:1)
Re: mag article on DRM (Score:1)
Show it as it is.
Why do these industries refuse to compete? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah... garsh, and I believed it too.
No, instead what's happened is that the same product has been steadily creeping up in price to the point where it no longer makes sense to buy it. I stopped buying large quantities of CDs around 1995 or so, around the time they hit the $16-18 range.
So, nowadays, on the rare occasion that I walk into my local music store and see $20+ CDs, I laugh to myself. Very few artists can pull that kind of cash out of my wallet anymore (Pink Floyd, Rush, Bill Hicks... to name a few.) I have better things to spend my money on.
It makes me wonder. Why... why do content companies refuse to compete? Technology (specifically home computing) has become a formidable new source of competition for them and instead of leaping at the opportunity to compete, to take on this new challenge, they turn to bullying tactics (destroying Napter) and draconian, self-serving laws (DMCA, SSSCA, etc.)
I wouldn't pay $20 for a CD. However, I might pay $20 for a CD if it came with not just one CD of music, but maybe another CD of studio outtakes and/or alternate mixes. How about a multimedia CD that plays movies on your computer, maybe short documentaries filmed during the making of the album (nothing fancy, just an insider's view like what Pink Floyd did on Live At Pompeii), interviews with the band about the album, maybe even a live performance played in the studio for the benefit of CD buyers? How about beefing up the standard CD into something worth my $20?
After all, they are so cheap to produce... right? If the media is so cheap, give me content worth buying, you content providers!
For that very reason, I am more willing to buy a DVD than a CD. In fact, I've bought more of the former than the latter in the last year. I find all the outtakes and artist commentary and extras make the high price tag a little more reasonable. Plus, I see multiple DVD sets being sold for more-or-less the same price.
Hell, why not release an album on DVD, including all this music along with tons of extra goodies and content? Maybe a nice booklet with the CD (no cheap crap either... more like the high quality booklet that came with Pink Floyd's Pulse.) I would consider going back to spending money on CDs again. Not only would it make it worth my money, but the sheer quantity and variety of content would make it considerably more difficult to pirate this stuff over any medium.
If these so-called content providers (who, as far as I can tell, want to provide nothing of the sort) would try to compete, they might find that we can all get along. If they want to hide behind stupid laws that serve only to validate their own ignorance, then I say fuck them and their overpriced CDs.
My only regret is that the artists, who deserve the money, will get screwed in all this. Then again, given the sort of sleazy business ethics under which most content providers work, I'm sure artists are familiar with that feeling already.
--Rick
Re:Why do these industries refuse to compete? (Score:2, Interesting)
Er, no. This is exactly the point. They are cheap to reproduce, but producing the first one is an expensive process: factor in the cost of studio time, equipment, a producer and an engineer, let alone living expenses for the weeks/months it takes... all that has to come from somewhere. If it doesn't come from CD sales, then where? Not all musicians can tour or play live.
I'm not defending the huge profits of the record companies, nor their attempts to screw both `consumers' and artists out of everything they can. But what if there isn't an alternative business model for some artists?
Re:Why do these industries refuse to compete? (Score:4, Informative)
Actually studio costs have been declining dratically due to digital technology. For example, an artist like Moby produces his recordings in his own house.
In any case the recording costs are charged to the artist and are not payed by record companies. True, record companies gamble on several acts hoping that at least one can produce a million seller that will cover their investment. But is this a necessary way to promote music?
Not all musicians can tour or play live.
Well, then you have to figure out a way to make money from other sources than selling CDs. Horse coach drivers were also put out of business by new technology. You have to adapt...
But what if there isn't an alternative business model for some artists?
I'm sure there is. They just have to figure it out. Screwing your customers works only so long...
Re:Why do these industries refuse to compete? (Score:1)
Re:Why do these industries refuse to compete? (Score:1)
And in many cases, the recording industry owns or is working with studios to keep the costs of studio time high. A label will give new bands an advance to cover studio time, gear, living expenses, etc. However, the labels have things rigged so that all of that gets sapped very quickly and the band ends up touring just to pay off their debt to the recording label while their royalties get eaten up by further debt and ongoing expenses. These recording labels like to keep their young artists in serious debt.
Why do you think we've heard so little outcry from the artists about all this? They know what sort of screw-job the recording industry is pulling here and I suspect that many of them would love to see a new business model unseat the old.
--Rick
Record company == pimp (Score:2)
I haven't bought a CD in so long that I can't remember the last one. It's probably been 3+ years. I stopped buying CDs before I ever even discovered P2P MP3 sharing, primarily because there simply wasn't anything being released on CD that I wanted to hear bad enough to pay for the CD.
When you combine the almost complete lack of any quality, original music from the (large) record companies these days with the way radio plays only the top 40 (of any given format) into the ground, I have no use for CDs. Anything released by the record companies that I might care to hear, I can hear enough to be sick of it in a matter of weeks just by turning on my radio.
I mostly listen to local and/or indie bands these days. I would have no problem buying their self produced CDs as it helps them recover their production expense and there is no pimp taking a 95%+ cut off the top. For convenience sake, though, I normally grab the MP3s off gnutella and then pay the artist through www.fairtunes.com. (I also do this for the handful of major label artists I like. It's quite satisfying to know that I can donate $5 to them for the couple of good songs I like and they will get the equivalent of 10 CDs worth of record company royalties.)
I'll be damned if I'll ever pay $15 for two good songs again, especially when $14.50 of it is going to a pimp that is simply exploiting me and the artist.
A Pirate Nation (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no irony here, Michael. The fact of the matter is that this country was founded as, and will always be, a pirate nation. As much as our government enjoys defaming China and like nations for the rampant piracy within their boundaries, from the beginning of copyright law in the United States the laws were purposefully worded in order to stimulate the society and promote the progress of the arts. Thomas Jefferson best explains the copyright clause of the Constitution in an 1813 letter.
"Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody."
The framers understood that it is absolutely necessary to protect the ideas of an individual, for the purpose of encouraging the creators in society to create, but such protection should not, and must not be extended beyond the point where they are beneficial to society. This is why the Constitution portions out 'limited times' of protection as the sole enumerated power granted to the congress in order 'to promote the progress of science and useful arts.'
The tactics of Disney, and like distributors, are an affront to the tenets which this country was founded on. Their most recent success, the CTEA (Copyright Term Extension Act) was the last straw for some Americans, and the arguments will finally be heard by the Supreme Court. (The Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case of Eldred v. Ashcroft, challenging the constitutionality of the Copyright Term Extension Act) The extension of copyrights for ideas created decades ago is not an attempt to promote progress, and it is stretching the definition of 'limited terms'. In fact, as Federal Circuit Judge Richard Posner noted, "creative works are both an input and an output in the creative process; if you raise the cost of the input, you get less output." It is easy to forget how much of the creative process depends on the works of others, for inspiration and motivation. Judge Posner eloquently posits the belief that at a certain point, protection of source material will begin to hinder more than help the arts which it attempts to nurture. This has obvious occurred in the case of the CTEA. There is no societal benefit to extending the copyright of Mickey Mouse. Walt Disney will certainly not be inclined to create more work. And at the same time, those in our society who would have used the new material that entered the public domain as a source for their creativity have been stifled. Consider what the greatness of Shakespeare would be if Hollingshed had been lost or hidden from him.
View the whole essay here. [uchicago.edu]
Re:A Pirate Nation (Score:2)
Re:A Pirate Nation (Score:1)
Why not? Why not return to the 14+14 that the founders of our nation thought was right? Why should copyright last until the creator's grandchildren are retired? Remember, the ultimate purpose of copyright is not to help the creator profit, it's to increase the amount of work in the public domain. Long copyright terms actually reduce the incentive to create new material, as the creator can sit back on his laurels and profit from his older work. In addition, people who would use copyrighted material as a springboard to create their own material cannot.
The rest of your post is completely irrelevant. The person you're responding to never claimed that people should be allowed to redistribute copyrighted material, and doing so would be a violation of the law under either the system the framers of the Constitution intended or the system we have now.
Re:A Pirate Nation (Score:3, Insightful)
Most likely were Mr Jefferson alive today he'd be arguing that since communication has much improvied in the last 200 years copyright terms should be getting shorter.
The framers understood that it is absolutely necessary to protect the ideas of an individual, for the purpose of encouraging the creators in society to create, but such protection should not, and must not be extended beyond the point where they are beneficial to society. This is why the Constitution portions out 'limited times' of protection as the sole enumerated power granted to the congress in order 'to promote the progress of science and useful arts.'
Whilst the definition of "limited time" has been stretched to mean "any finite time" the bit about promoting the progress of science and userful arts appears to have been much ignored. To the point where there is proposed legislation which directly opposes the progress of part of these.
Federal Circuit Judge Richard Posner noted, "creative works are both an input and an output in the creative process; if you raise the cost of the input, you get less output." It is easy to forget how much of the creative process depends on the works of others, for inspiration and motivation. Judge Posner eloquently posits the belief that at a certain point, protection of source material will begin to hinder more than help the arts which it attempts to nurture.
Which probably isn't an original idea. Quite possibly it's the reason the US constitution was written that way in the first place. Indeed "limited time" could just as easily cover the term of protection going down as well as up. Possibly with some kinds of work to a period better measured in weeks or months than years.
Judge Posner (Score:2)
Circuit Judge Richard Posner noted
This is only a minor quibble, but Judge Posner is on the 7th circuit.
What I hope happens... (Score:1)
I hope that P2P networks for movies in the future take off (already have today), and that hollywoods efforts too control the medium become void. Albert they seem posied to implement some rather stupid laws.
If cinimas lose some of the ablity to provide exclusives, since everyone has already seen the rough cuts months before it is released in the cinima then there should be a lot fewer of these hollywood flops, Movies overhyped inorder to drag as many people to the local multi-plex for the first two weeks before word of month spreads that they sux. Loads of movies fall into this catagorie, pearl harbour, Star Wars EP1 (a movie which broke all box office records before anyone had even seen it) etc. Sadly hollywood seems to have become about promotion rather then about creating movies.
If people have the opition of seeing a movies at a crappy quality, then in the cinima, then buying the DVD months later with all the extras on it, creating movies becomes less about hype and more about making somthing which grows more the more times you see it ie Pulp Fiction etc. In sort there is more incentive for the creation of a quality product and not the same pop corn fodder that has been screening lately.
Piracy could have the effect of nullifying hype which I think benifits everyone, even those which don't partake in the practise (most people are pretty honest, given half a chance).
ok I'll help here.. (Score:3, Insightful)
So i'll ask, what do you people want? the ability to send digital videos of your home movies to friends.. or to have your computer totally restricted in what it can and can not do..
On a side note here.. It seems that Microsoft is all pretty gung ho while stay quiet about DRM technology.. Mostly i think because they can profit off of it by blending it into the OS, which makes me wonder why other DRM software companies don't seem to worried that Microsoft will dominate this software field as well... any thoughts?
General Misuse of the term "Broadcasting" (Score:3, Interesting)
With radio broadcasting, a station spends a fortune on:
- Spectrum rights (FCC)
- Broadcast equipment
- Content Broadcasting rights
So there's a high barrier to entry, but once you've achieved all this, you saturate the "air" for miles around with your content. It doesn't matter whether one person tunes into your content or a million people tune in. You still spend the same amount of money (you may get more in advertising if a lot of people are listening, but that's another story).With Internet "broadcasting" a site needs to buy:
- A domain (equiv to spectrum rights)
- A fast server/server farm (broadcast equip)
- A fat pipe (because streaming music, video or trading files takes a lot of bandwidth)
- Content Broadcasting rights (hopefully)
Unlike traditional broadcasting, the cost of operation jumps for each listener tuned in. Each listener requires an ongoing dialog with the server and a big chunk of bandwidth, plus the content owners/format owners want to bill you per user (QuickTime 6 has been delayed because of this nonsense [creativemac.com]) because they know you have the numbers.The costs of truly "broadcasting" over the Internet are prohibitive even for large companies and will never be economical for the average Joe sitting in his den, no matter how fat consumer bandwidth gets. File swapping is not broadcasting -- anyone who thinks it is has obviously never waited two hours in the server que for a download slot or tried to download a 20MB file at 0.8kbps.
Re:General Misuse of the term "Broadcasting" (Score:2)
You can help this with an infrastructure more complicated than a single server location. But they you have to pay out more, and be able to install "repeater" servers at short notice depending on your ongoing listener/viewer demographics.
Re:General Misuse of the term "Broadcasting" (Score:1)
Multicast (Score:2)
Unlike traditional broadcasting, the cost of operation jumps for each listener tuned in. Each listener requires an ongoing dialog with the server and a big chunk of bandwidth
Not with IP Multicast [google.com]. You can broadcast UDP packets to entire networks across the globe from you. Of course, this assumes that all routers between you and them support multicast, and that's why MBONE [lbl.gov] is so important.
Nothing new (Score:2)
DRM in Information Security Magazine (Score:3, Interesting)
how long? (Score:1)
1 12 hours
How much do cable companies pay for Cable Music? (Score:2)
v. broadcast, or broadcasted broadcasting, broadcasts
v. tr.
1. To transmit (a radio or television program) for public or general use.
2. To send out or communicate, especially by radio or television: The agency broadcast an urgent appeal for medical supplies.
3. To make known over a wide area: broadcast rumors. See Synonyms at announce.
To sow (seed) over a wide area, especially by hand.
Note #2 especially radio or television, but not excluseively.. My point here being.. doesn't Cable TV networks broadcast music channels for all differnt kinds.. like 40+ stations right through your tv or in most people's case... their home entertainment network.. i could easily re-route(flip a dial) the sound from my cable box to my computer and record all those if i wanted to in pure digital too..
So how much are digital cable companies paying for broadcast royalties? And if its different than net broadcasts.. why?
the Man vs. the Men (Score:3, Interesting)
HDTV is DOA. (Score:2)
"... Unlike DVD movies, which are encrypted on the disk and decrypted every time they?re played, digital broadcast television has to be unencrypted. For one thing, the Federal Communications Commission requires that broadcast television be sent "in the clear." (The rationale is that broadcasters are custodians of a public resource -- the part of the electromagnetic spectrum used for television -- and therefore have to make whatever they pump into that spectrum available to everyone.) Then, too, digital TV has to reach existing digital television sets, which cannot decode encrypted broadcasts"
HDTV and digital "over the air broadcast" will never be accepted by the industry. They are trying to get a direct "named" pipe into your house (and wallet.)
Re:HDTV is DOA. (Score:2)
That said, there is plenty of DTV content out there already. Most major networks have HD primetime programming, and simulcast their analog broadcasts on their digital channel in SD. There are even special HD content producers such as HDNet [hd.net] (backed by Mark Cuban of Broadcast.Com fame)
Look over the horizon: DRM in MPEG-21 (Score:3, Informative)
http://mpeg.telecomitalialab.com/standards/mpeg-2
The seven key elements defined in MPEG-21 are:
1.Digital Item Declaration (a uniform and flexible abstraction and interoperable schema for declaring Digital Items);
2. Digital Item Identification and Description (a framework for identification and description of any entity regardless of its nature, type or granularity);
3. Content Handling and Usage (provide interfaces and protocols that enable creation, manipulation, search, access, storage, delivery, and (re)use of content across the content distribution and consumption value chain);
4. Intellectual Property Management and Protection ( the means to enable content to be persistently and reliably managed and protected across a wide range of networks and devices );
5. Terminals and Networks (the ability to provide interoperable and transparent access to content across networks and terminals);
6. Content Representation (how the media resources are represented);
7.Event Reporting (the metrics and interfaces that enable Users to understand precisely the performance of all reportable events within the framework);
Combine this with the proposed DRM legistaltion in US/EU contries and then think about the business relationship you have with media companies.
It will change.
Encryption.. (Score:5, Interesting)
What's interesting is the genius of this approach - instead of hackers ripping off the movie industry, they would then be ripping off consumers - with every key cracked, more and more DVD players would become obsolete. Hence, both the tech factions and content factions stood to benefit from this arrangement.
The really interesting thing about this arrangement is that it is practical, though of limited effectiveness, and it requires no special legislation. If all copyrighted works were protected with such an encryption scheme, piracy would truly dwindle because the content providers could simply switch keys and render all of a hacker's previous efforts worthless. What really surprises me is that the content faction hasn't caught on. Here is a scheme which would allow them to literally make movies or songs unplayable after a certain length of time (say video rental...) and profit multiple times, and they are sleeping on it!
Instead, the content faction is fighting a losing battle against the tech faction. Computers, by their very nature need to make perfect copies to function, and any specialized hardware required for copy protection could simply be co-opted by a virtual machine. What is needed is a movie/music/book format which requires a licensed piece of hardware (say, a media board) to decrypt. Thus, those users who want to enjoy MPAA or RIAA licensed content would have to purchase a media board for their PC's, where as those who don't won't have their rights to create content taken away from them. Basically, there would be two types of content: unlicensed and licensed. Licensed content would require hardware decryption, whereas unlicenced content wouldn't. This solution works for both the content faction and the tech faction, without taking rights away from the individual to use their computers as they see fit.
Re:Encryption.. (Score:2)
Another way of putting that might be:
Great way to make sure that the market for cracked DVDs expands massively.
Re:Encryption.. (Score:2, Insightful)
I have a big problem with MPAA and RIAA leveraging their monopoly control over the entertainment industry to create barriers to entry for amateur artists and new artists. (If a player can only play "official" content then amateurs are excluded.)
They already killed one format (DAT) with their paranoid ramblings over unauthorized copying.
I don't want to sacrifice all forward movement of technology just so I can hear the latest Britney Spears "song" on my DRM-enabled, otherwise disabled computer.
I understand they have concerns and I might be willing to listen to them if they were to shorten the copyright length to 20 years instead having copyrights last into all eternity (I'll be dead, my children will be dead, my grandchildren will be dead, close enough to eternity in my book.)
Re:Encryption.. (Score:1)
I have a feeling that this will piss off DVD manufacturers more:
What about one manufacturer sabotaging another manufacturer's player by leaking the keys, to earn a market for its newer player?
Sounds too crappy/complicated.
Re:Encryption.. (Score:2)
Such a scheme requires absolute trust on the part of the consumer, and no compensating trust on the part of the DRM technology provider.
IOW, if the DRM manager blows out of the deal, all content dependent this DRM scheme becomes inaccessable. How do you plan to address this? Only way I can see is to make the gov't the key manager and mfgr of your proposed media boards. Yeah, I'm sure THAT will be real efficient.
And what about foreign content, which may have its own incompatible DRM schemes?
Re:Encryption.. (Score:2)
But the idea sounds workable if it was done correctly.
Ways to deduce a key (Score:2, Informative)
How the hell do you crack a key?
I read "crack a key" as "deduce a key".
Easy. Simply try every possible key against the content, and take what looks like valid content (all high bits turned off for ASCII text; valid MPEG-2 headers for DVDs) . This works best with the shorter key lengths used in some popular ciphers. For example, CSS, a 40-bit cipher, should take about 13 days to crack at 1 million keys per second. However, many ciphers and systems have holes, and CSS's Achilles heel lies in the disk key system [xs4all.nl]. Given only the hash of the disk key, the complexity of a brute-force attack reduces to 25-bit, which should take well under a minute on even a slow PIII.
Not surprisingly.... (Score:2)
"Families deserve to have options to watch movies on the Net, legally, at their command."
Touching, isn't it?
Re:Not surprisingly.... (Score:2)
Re:Not surprisingly.... (Score:2)
Sorry, but, no, they don't "deserve" any such thing. Such a service may or may not be offered; if it is offered, it may or may not survive in the marketplace. If either of the above decisions turns out to be "not", then people will just have to deal with its absence.
What we really need instead... (Score:1)
I'm dreaming I know, but I wish I wasn't. If they outlaw useful computers, a black market for useful computers will erupt. Come to think of it, sounds a bit like prohibition.
Sloppy Editting (Score:1)
For those in Florida... (Score:3, Interesting)
So keep that in mind when voting next time...
Re:For those in Florida... (Score:1)
My reply from Senator Bill Nelson of Florida [tripod.com]
Or has he changed it since then? (Oh, and does he still include the Post Script about Anthrax?)
Re:For those in Florida... (Score:2)
My reply from Senator Bill Nelson of Florida [tripod.com]
Or has he changed it since then? (Oh, and does he still include the Post Script about Anthrax?)
Yes the anthrax postscript is still there, but the content has changed. I'm sorry I can't scan it and upload it, as I tore it to shreds in a fit of rage!
I will vote against him next time around.
This has been going on for too long (Score:2)
I've spent too much time being outraged about Fritz, Hillary, Eisner, and the whole gang. They are proclaiming the end of the world if they can't increase their revenues in light of technologocial advances that makes delievery of their products cheaper. And they seem to think it is their constitutional right to make a profit in an industry just because they could make a profit in the past.
Take the whole digital television aspect of things. The industry doesn't want us to be able to record those broadcasts for later viewing or distribution. Why? So they can trade syndications with each other (ala Full House, Saved By The Bell, Friends) and rebroadcast them to us when they feel we want to watch them. If the typical TV-loving American already has the past two years of his favorite sitcom PVR'd in its original broadcast quality (or a slightly lower quality), he won't be sure to tune in at 5:35 Monday through Friday to watch it on the Superstation, will he? So the Superstation won't be able to haul in as much advertising for that show.
There's nothing wrong with the above scenario. The TV station will either have to do something with that syndicate to make it really compelling (like not showing the same ~40 episodes over and over), or they'll get some new show to put in its place (Like "The Whoopi Goldberg Not-Quite-Famous Hollywood Crap-a-Thon").
Of course, the syndicates won't just go away, because home recording (or file swapping) still requires effort on behalf of the consumer, while tuning in for an episode hand-picked by the station is much easier. But the stations won't be able to get by as easily on cheap syndications. This new development might result in higher quality programming.
Another alternative (which is already starting) is for the stations to provide a nicely packaged alternative to the do-it-yourself approach: Sell the series on DVD. Throw in a nice menu, some scripts, outtakes, interviews, etc. and charge $60/season. The industry is doing the stuff that would be a hassle for consumers to do (be sure to record each episode, edit out / fast forward through commercials, transfer it to the desired medium) and throwing in some other stuff that the consumer didn't have before (i.e., new content).
The industries will fare much better if they find ways to compete with or benefit from the new technologies, rather than whine to the government until enough laws are passed. At this rate, they won't be satisfied until there is a royalty tax on computers just because we have the ability to copy their content with it (such as the royalty tax on blank CD-R's).
content companies are incredibly stupid (Score:2, Interesting)
Take for example digital tv and a show such as "24" which is regularly on the peer networks hours after the show is aired without commercials.
Now the status quo is for the content creators to go ape shit and fight tooth and nail to keep these epsiodes off the internet to preserve the commercial value of thier property.
If these idiots had any brains they would look at the problem from another point of view. The consumers WANT this delivered via the internet medium. The trick is to deliver it WITHOUT destroying the commercial value.
When they start looking at the problem they will answer a number of questions
1) why do people download a show on the internet
- Well Probably 1 of 3 reasons. First they may not have a tv (college students), second they may have missed the episode and wish to view it at a later date. or finally they may wish to collect the epesodes for later viewing (in a series).
2) Is it easy to download shows.
- actually not. an hour show on a fast connection on a Peer network will take in excess of an 2 hours and the quality is questionable.
3) As soon as the show hits the internet will the commercials be ripped from it?
- well after reviewing the issue I think you will find that the answer is it depends. To record and compress a show is not an easy process for the technically inept and even less if they want to burn it to VCD. The reason people pull the commercials is First to save download time and second, it is a trivial process if you are already converting the file.
Now lets say I have some basic business sense. How much do you think people will pay for a commercial that is not only shown onece at one time slot but shown 100's of times in each household?
So now the question is how do I keep them downloading the program from me and keeping the commercials intact.
well lets see what we can do to make downloading the program from us attractive to the consumer.
Download time: Well I can provide a stable fast connection for consumers to download "24". rather then go through the peer networks. The trade off is that the commercials are intact
2) Quality. you can always count on our quality. there is nothing worse then waiting 2 hours for a download and it being in crap condition.
3) Format: Strangely enough We are gonna do this in open format. In addition we are going to make it VCD format so NO conversion is needed and it will neatly fit onto 1 CD (commercials and all). hell we will even give you the art work!!!
NOW do you really really think people are going to take the time to rip the commercials? Even if they did? Do you think anyone would bother going to the peer networks? In addition you can ask for peoples address (I dont have a problem with this) make money off the lists that you create. Plus commercials in the first run AND commercails
in download.
I think its time for the MPAA people to go back to business 101
isn't this what we've been saying? (Score:1)
So they get it but don't get it. They concede that we'll probably do the right thing and pay the service, but they're still trying to paint users as being criminals. They acknowledge that they haven't provided the sort of service that users want and would pay for, but continue to state (elsewhere, not in this article) that we're only using the post-Napster services because we want to take without paying. They know that music lovers want to hear "new voices," implicitly agreeing that we're not getting that from traditional distribution models, but they still push lowest common denominator music as their highest priority.
I guess I should just be glad that they are making this much of a public acknowledgment and hope that these small steps continue.
You can have my computer when... (Score:2)
We hear of the GeekPAC and the EFF, and they are doing important work, but average people don't understand it. How can we digest the issue so that average people understand it, and see that when the entertainment industry wins, the people lose?
Court cases and congressional lobbying are very important, but they cannot be the end of our efforts. We here at slashdot are a widely dispersed, well educated, and well informed group. If we all make a local effort, we could make a huge impact. Imagine slashdotting the local dead tree bulletin boards.
We need to start a unified effort to educate the people around us. I'm not the person to do it, I don't know how. I can't even convince my wife that she should care. (She thinks it is an issue for programmers only, but she listened a little when I explained the library angle.)
What have you tried? How have you convinced people? Which arguments were most successful? Can we come up with a flyer design for other geeks to print and use? Is there a graphic designer out there with some spare time?
Plaintext means Piracy (Score:2)
This plaintext can ALWAYS be intercepted and copied.
Digital technology does not assure that exact duplicate copies can be made of encrypted media...it does mean that reasonble quality copies of the decoded plaintext (decoded in a crypto and compression sense) can be distributed and reproduced in an unlimited fashion without any FURTHER quality degradation.
No way around this, period. If a person can see or hear it, a computer can as well. It will be on gnutella, etc.
Nor do I think there is any watermark that cannot be removed, but this is a theoretical issue currently.
Re:Plaintext means Piracy (Score:2)
The side effect that it is now impossible to distribute entertainment (or any information) without a contract with an entertainment company. This is the actual goal of all this legislation.
Its not DRM goddamnedit! (Score:2)