Hollywood's DRM Agenda Moving Forward 288
risingphoenix writes "The New York Times has a story about the progress Hollywood has made putting Digtal Rights Management in the marketplace. The story focuses on what technology is currently in place; what the next moves, technically and legally, are for the industry and how consumers are being affected by Hollywoods power grab."
Stop watching TV.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorta OT... (Score:5, Insightful)
made me wonder what they're actually offering us in exchange for what's being taken away - that is basically, easy to tape television and easy to copy movies. Is the picture going to get much better on DVDs? Will large, widescreen/wall TVs get cheaper? Will there a be a point where first run movies are released simultaneously in theaters and Best Buy? Or submitted directly to our homes via a set top box for 7 bucks (for each person in the room, of course)? Will Jack Valenti live to be an unholy 300 years old? Just thinking.
It does not matter what they do (Score:5, Insightful)
They cannot escape from this undeniable truth. Real mass piracy will never go away for this reason. This DRM technology only serves to take away consumers fair use and increases corporations control.
Either way, this won't ever become mainstream. People will demand the rights to use their media any way they want to. That means being able to make and burn mp3s for portable players in their car etc. As soon as people figure this out the hardware simply won't sell.
Why else do you think macrovision disabled region free DVD players out sell normal players?
How they'll screw the public (Score:5, Insightful)
After the media companies spin it into Hollywood backing off because they're good Americans and want people to have the right to watch TV (just like it says in the Constitution) the average guy is going to say "Hey, this is a reasonable tradeoff to get The Sopranos in high definition goodness! I sure am glad they didn't stick with that first plan. It would have been awful! Sure, I can't record it, but that would be piracy!"
Time and again, the informed people screwed by the ignorant ones. Same story here.
Alternatives? (Score:5, Insightful)
My question is that if you object to DRM because of the way its is done, what should be done? Please don't say "lower prices" because that's just a rationalization that they're somehow forcing pirates to do it. A boycott is a well-proven means of protext.
If you're against intellectual property in general, just skip this, because the industry is never going to work for free, nor accept your suggestion, nor IMHO should they. Folks who create intangibles are as entitled to compensation as people who build bridges.
In an age when it is orders of magnitude easier to copy, what should the rights holders do to protect their work? Think positive! Frankly, I don't know.
Re:Speed bumps (Score:5, Insightful)
The biggest problem with all these DRM schemes is that the restrictions are pointlessly complex so the consumer can't understand them. The other closely connected problem is not telling the customer about them.
It will be interesting to see whether stopping people from recording pay per view increases viewership or as I expect causes people not to pay the already exhorbitant fees.
Re:It does not matter what they do (Score:4, Insightful)
Do not underestimate them, this is why they do not want just DRM control but complete control of computers. What they are ultimatly after is control over what you can run on your computer. ie. They have to sign everything. Then you can not do what you want, and for the few capable of making there own computer and using it, they want that made ilegal.
In any war it it first best to know what your enemy actually wants.
disclaimer: worst-case... (Score:4, Insightful)
Entertainment could end up being another utility like water or power. Screw that - between income tax and sales tax I'm already losing over half my income a year, if everything we do requires constant usage fees, we end up as a kind of vassal caste for these people.
Re:Speed bumps (Score:4, Insightful)
They are so full of shit. I am too lazy on a Sunday morning to look for the article but they made tons more money this year than last. I download movies like fucking crazy (mostly DVD rips). But just last week (in a 7 day time span) I went to see three movies (Gangs of NY, LOTR, and Harry Potter 2). Two of those movies were w/another person (Gangs of NY would not be appreciated by my gf
Now. Sure. I have probably 100 DVD rips. But that doesn't mean that they have lost anymore money on me than they would have on anyone else.
If I didn't download them, I wouldn't have watched it at all. No money lost here.
They made a fortune on me in the past two weeks... Get over it Hollywood. When your fucking "stars" quit parading around in their jewels, fancy cars bought for each other, and see through dresses and start showing up to $1 theatres dressed in rags and dragging four children along that you had to pull from the nearest dumpster after they ate for the latest hollywood premiere, don't come crying to me.
They will hunt you down...... (Score:2, Insightful)
(I wish this was completely joking...)
-PAPPP
Re:Alternatives? (Score:1, Insightful)
As long as Hollywood continues to push overpriced crap down peoples throats, people will continue to try to protect themselves by getting cheaper copies and only buy whatever is really worth the price.
If Hollywood started to realize that people wish to pay for what is good (I personally own two DVD's (no player yet), I've had both films long ago. They're worth the price, so I pay) and don't try to decide for the customers, they'll live better.
Re:Alternatives? (Score:5, Insightful)
How could we have saved the buggy whip manufacturers? There was only one way: outlaw the horseless carriage. How could the Monks have kept a monopoly on books? Outlaw the printing press.
How can Hollywood continue to maintain their current rate of return? Abolish the personal computer.
This isnt just about 'media' or 'consumers' (Score:2, Insightful)
This is just one more small step towards that ultimate goal.
Re:Alternatives? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not the price, it's the VALUE. People buy the good stuff, and pirate the crap. Why? Because it's all priced the same.
Despite the ready availability of pirated media content, people are STILL buying CDs and DVDs (and sales are continuing to grow). I think the difference is in what they are buying. People buy movies like Lord of the Rings and CDs by talented artists. People pirate copies of movies like Ballistic: Ecks vs Sever and songs by the latest bubblegum fad boy band.
The reason is simple: they might get some short-lived enjoyment out of watching or listening to the crap a few times, but they know they will quickly get tired of it, because it really isn't all that good.
DVDs and CDs present value when they have good re-play ability. After all, they are an INVESTMENT. Add up the cost of your music and movie collection at $10 a videotape, $15 a CD, and $20 a DVD. Even just ballparking it, mine's up around $8,000. I would bet there are real mediaphiles out there with collections in excess of $20,000.
If the media industry wants to stamp out piracy, they do need to lower prices... on the CRAP. If $20 is the price for a premium quality movie on DVD, than they should be charging $10 for a crap movie on DVD (and trust me, they know which are good and which are just crap). A crap movie might not be worth $20, but it might present a value at $5 or $10, and people would rather simply drive down to Best Buy and pick it up, rather than spending two days on WinMX trying to download it.
Re:Alternatives? (Score:5, Insightful)
But they are *trying* to make it MY problem.
What pisses me off is that they want to stick *their* claws into MY computer in the process -- that they want DRM to be in the hardware, in the OS, in the applications I might use to create or distribute my own original content.
What if your word processor didn't allow you to paste citations or quotes unless you had purchased a key for the original work? What if the quote then deleted itself from your article after 24 hours? What if you needed to buy a DRM key for each original article you write and claim copyright for? Oh, you don't think that can happen? Tell me, what is the difference between original music and original writing?? As I see it, it's just a matter of degree, so I present this example to point out the absurdity that's being pushed on us in the name of big-media DRM.
Re:What have you done? (Score:2, Insightful)
What i do is that i go to the CD store and pick up the CD, then look like im gonna purchase it until suddenly i realice that its protected and i wont be able to play it on my computer (i of course make sure the staff know this)
Its also worth to note that the cheapest new CD's from that company cost $30 going up too $37,5. and you thought your CD's were expensive.
I admit thats not enaugh, without people actually mailing them in the masses protesting and not buying their products nothing will get better, and there simply aren't enaugh of us who actually care about these things. How many people actually know or care about DRM? 10% maybe and how many of those are willing to make a change?
The sad truth is that DRM wont go away unless we start actively protesting it.
Scary quote from the end of the article (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How they'll screw the public (Score:2, Insightful)
For instance. If I were to say "I am going to cut of all of you limbs" for a few weeks and then say "OK, OK, just your legs" does not mean that anyone with an iq over 7 will think I have given them a good proposition.
More than likely what they'll do is heavily promote the fact they have dropped the nasty ideas, and try to push the nearly as nasty ideas though without people noticing.
So what we really need to do is keep a very close eye on what they are doing, even when we think we have won.
uhh, no you should demand more. (Score:5, Insightful)
That evil box sitting on your TV and "media consolidation" are the keys to making every place as unserved by culture as North West Alaska in 1910. Media consolidation assures the current broadcasters that no on else will be able to provide content. MP3.com will die sooner or later under it's lawsuit loads, and all the others that would do likewise know better than to throw good money after bad. That evil box on your TV will makes sure no one else can create content that your TV will play. An equivalent box in the local movie theater already prescribes what content will apear on the screen and when - without a physical copy ever entering the building. Wanna try to get your movie distributed in a theater like that? Good luck trying to own the satilite, and escaping the FBI if you try. The theater owner can't help you even if they wanted to.
The only solution is to create a peer maintained independent wireless network. All the wires are owned by people who think they can screw you all day long.
Re:Alternatives? (Score:3, Insightful)
If the car industry worked the same way as the DVD industry in regards to pricing, a Mecedes S600 and a Chevy Vega would both cost $115,000.
Protect yourself and buy a good VCR (better yet... (Score:3, Insightful)
Instead, they are actively trying to move people to DVD and "digital" because they think it's a different medium and they can do to digital what they'd loved to have done to the VCR. Don't fall into their trap. You want a DVD machine? Fine, buy it. But also buy at least one VCR while you're at it (I have two that perform very well.) They figure if everyone moves to digital and they are successful in their bids they'll wind up where they wanted to wind up when they sued to have the recording VCR made illegal.
I'm guessing this issue will eventually move back to the Supremos again, and that these guys will lose again--but it's not a sure thing. They've already lost with the VCR, however. Just something to think about.
Fair use and DVD advertisements (Score:2, Insightful)
Could they be sued for truth in advertising?
Pay per use is untenable in a competitive market (Score:4, Insightful)
Why is pay-per-use untenable in a competitive market? People do not like it, so it suppresses demand for the pay-per-use service. In a competitive market where suppliers are trying to meet and create demand, this generates an opportunity to undercut the pay-per-use provider. Suppliers almost always emerge who will take that competitive opportunity.
Pay-per-use does however frequently does make sense in a non-competitive or ologopolistic environment where consumers must purchase the service. This situation existed for some time with hub-and-spoke in the airline industry. The commodity being metered was seat miles purchased at particular times. Here the supplier was able to charge to the hilt for demand that was inelastic (i.e., people have to pay because they have no other option).
Well, does inelastic demand like this exist for entertainment? Likely not. As we have seen with the rise of minor league baseball, web journalism, independent films, cd sales, and even blogs, people can find quick substitutes for the over-charged items.
I don't think regulatory relief will be quick (look at microsoft). We'll have to rely on the hacker community and all of the competitors who are seeking to create demand.
Re:For those who need some DRM background (Score:1, Insightful)
Still not ready (Score:3, Insightful)
From the article
Already, people are finding unfamiliar constraints on how they can consume familiar media: listen to music on your PC, but do not try to copy it to your MP3 player; watch a movie in your home as often as you want for 24 hours -- because after that it will evaporate into the ether; marvel at your plasma-screen TV, but be prepared for your picture quality to be diminished if you do not have the latest model with anti-piracy equipment.
With crap like this I am glad GNU/Linux distros are still considered not ready for the desktop. Mr. Valenti might try to upgrade us (or outlaw us)!
Re:How they'll screw the public (Score:5, Insightful)
Ergo, it will work.
Sorry, feeling a little cynical this morning.
Re:Speed bumps (Score:2, Insightful)
Nah. Carry on paying for movies to the same extent you would anyway. Carry on copying movies to the same extent you would anyway. They don't stand a chance at actually succeeding in their machinations, but it's amusing to watch.
What's the best they've managed so far?
"Hmmm it's illegal for people to copy these big files that we create and have initial control of, but people copy them anyway! How can we stop them?"
"I know, let's make it illegal for them to copy and distribute the files that let them crack the incription, you know, the ones we don't create and have no control over. There's no way they'll be able to share files like that when it's illegal!"
Now that's entertainment worth paying them for.
Re:It does not matter what they do (Score:2, Insightful)
It's about the industry wanting to earn as much money as possible, with as little investment as possible. By using DRM they intend to get us to pay more for less. Currently we're consuming media for the largest part of our time. The only way media can make more money is to let us have less media for the same money.
We can only consume media 18/7 (we've got to sleep a bit too), and then it's a dead-end, and i think we're getting close that limit, except if we count the 2/3's of the world population who can't afford almost any media att all, but i imagine most media companies is quite uninterested in that group of people.
A bike has a lock to prevent that it won't be stolen from me.
A car has a lock to prevent that it's stolen from me.
A house has a lock to prevent a burglar from entering.
My DVD has a lock to prevent me from using it the way i want.
I can let anyone i choose rent my bike.
I can let anyone i choose rent my car.
I can let anyone i choose rent my house
I cant let anyone rent my DVD.
The undeniable truth is that we've already let the media companies go to far.
Thanks for managing my rights for me. (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course these business models can be as irritating, restrictive, and coercive as all get out.
I can't help but notice that the entertainment industry (including sports), is all about getting more and more money for giving you essentially the same thing. Commodities of all other types become cheaper to purchase, higher in quality, and packed with more functionality. The reason the entertainment industry gets away with this outrageous behavior (other than their huge lobbying efforts in congress) is that by definition entertainment is perceived of as a luxury. If manufacturers of the necessities of life treated consumers this way they would be hauled before congress, and made to explain themselves.
Cable companies tend to be local monopolies and act accordingly. Our local cable is structured such that you can get a 10 dollar basic cable rate, but this only gives you the same channels you can get with a rabbit ear antenna, and at not much higher quality, the next "tier" is over 4 times more expensive. Throwing in a load of crap you probably don't want and making the next bump up to HBO and Showtime seem much more sensible (hell it's only 10 dollars more...). Do you know of any other products that go from entry level to more than 4x plus luxury model with no other steps between? Even with the full service, some ad-supported channels are scrambled. I have paid for "The Sci-Fi" channel, but I can't set my VCR to tape it directly, I have to be sure and leave the Sci-Fi channel on, and record it from my cable box (there is some user unfriendly way to program your cable box for a timed recording, so now you have two things to program, and multiple points of failure possible).
Of course the more money the entertainment industry can make, the more money that can be collected in taxes. Thus the government has the same addiction to increasing entertainment revenues, the same way they are now addicted to increasing gambling and lotto revenues, whether their citizenry spending a disproportionate percentage their income on these things is a good thing or not.
Worst of all is the disdain the industry has for its customers. We have all seen the FBI warning at the beginning of a VCR tape, and accordingly fast-forwarded through. Now comes DVD, and you must sit patently sit through this thing every time (which has been timed for slow readers), and if you try to skip forward, I think in some cases it resets the time out clock. Of late I also get to sit through this warning in two other languages as well. Some DVDs even force you sit through commercials for related projects. I bought this DVD, I own it, it shouldn't lock me out of controlling my DVD player. It also shouldn't surreptitiously put software on my computer if I choose to view it there, nor coerce me into installing special software to view. Guess what, that improved DVD viewer they offer you is likely to break your sound drivers, and if it's your mom or dad, being good citizens by following the DVD instructions, well then they are just screwed, since the DVD distributors really don't have any legitimate reason to be mucking around with your computer's settings, and now every thing is horribly broken (I still have trouble explaining to my dad why the play button on the DVD remote won't play the DVD, and he has to "select" play from the entry screen with the select button).
So now we want to give the over the air broadcasters the power to be just as manipulative and coercive as cable and DVD? Ironic that I took my digital rights for granted until everyone suddenly wants to manage them for me.
enabling of bussiness models (Score:4, Insightful)
so does slavery.
Re:Pay per use is untenable in a competitive marke (Score:4, Insightful)
One will expect that the next DRM enabled devices will be made in a way that would allow fewer and fewer companies to create content for them. And if those devices become popular, than independant producers will have to beg one of the big companies to release their movies/music for them.
Not a good prospect.
DIVX rips vs buying a DVD (Score:2, Insightful)
If the industry made thier products easier to use, and didn't markup the prices at such an obscene amount, I'd actually buy something. AFAIK, tapes are about 8 bucks around here, CDs are 18. Why am I paying 10 dollars more for something that costs less to manufacture as compared to the tape?
Oh wait, I'm not. =)
So, after looking at this information, why does the recording industry insist on spending so much time and money on a protection scheme that will do little to stop pirates from getting the data, and will make it HARDER for people like me to listen to thier CDs?
Re:They continue to go after the wrong enemy (Score:3, Insightful)
This will not work.
P2P users know they are pirating movies, its just too easy compared to the legal means to get the movie that way.
The effort cost and delay is P2P is outweight by the effort cost and delay in buying a DVD through the post.
These schemes are called 'fingerprinting' these days.
The alternative for fingerprinting is to individually fingerprint the digital copy when its delivered. So the movie you just bought & downloaded on the internet would say "I was sold as transaction 294747592". That number would point back to you if pirated.
But it doesn't work if you give people a way of detecting the fingerprint.
They will attempt to remove it, but will only know if they are successful if you also give them a tool to detect the fingerprint.
If you keep the tool in the hands of law enforcement, then even if they successfully break the fingerprint, you can just change the fingerprinting method and catch them next time.
The pirate can never really be sure if the copy he's pirating doesn't point to him.
Re:uhh, no you should demand more. (Score:2, Insightful)