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."
Write Amy Harmon (author of story) (Score:5, Interesting)
The only address I could find is letters@nytimes.com which will be directed to the letters editor (duh) but perhaps one could try amy.harmon@nytimes.com or a.harmon@nytimes.com or some other variation.
If anyone *does* find her direct address, pls post.
Just Hurry Up and Bring it On. (Score:4, Interesting)
Will Your TV Become a Spy? (Score:5, Interesting)
While the economy and stock markets struggled, 2002 was a golden year for the silver screen. Thanks to blockbuster hits such as Spider-Man, Harry Potter, and Lord of the Rings, ticket sales hit $9.3 billion worldwide, a remarkable 13% rise over 2001's then-record receipts. So much for claims that piracy threatens Hollywood's livelihood.
decently done article, not toooooo long
Re:Sorta OT... (Score:4, Interesting)
I think so. The filmmakers get rid of an entire distribution system and it's costs, and replace it with equipment that the customer has to buy. The shifting of cost to the customer results in increased profits.
If they get away with the first step, the next thing I'd expect is movie rental prices that vary depending on the playback equipment. IE, you pay one price for playback on plain TV's with up to 30 inch sceens, and higher prices for bigger screens, HTDV and/or better audio. They'll justify this by claiming that you use a bigger screen because you're playing back to a bigger audience. Eventually, they'll demand that the playback equipment be able to count the number of viewers and refuse to play if you didn't pay a suffucent rental fee.
Too mutch (Score:2, Interesting)
Anyway i dont even have to read this, i'll always disagree with DRM because if i buy a CD i expect to be able to do anything i like with it, listen to it in my car sterio, on my computer not just in my CD player.
I firmly belive it is my right to do so and so is it my right to be able to watch a movie i've paid for anytime i want in any format.
The industry cries about losing money, but do you actually see any of that? It would be nice to see if some of you have information on that, has the movie industry been loosing money since the whole DVD- ripping phenomenon started?
I think not...
Re:It does not matter what they do (Score:2, Interesting)
The technology actually exists to make it possible to do what they want.
In fact as I recall certain laws were passed which at the time had no feasable way on being enforced.
The reason these laws passed was because there was no fasable way of enforcing them.
However now they can, and this could mean it may be already too late unless people (the common man as it were) realise what could happen.
They continue to go after the wrong enemy (Score:4, Interesting)
Your Rights vs Their Profits (Score:3, Interesting)
I hope it works (Score:5, Interesting)
Why? Because digital video production is getting pretty cheap these days. Music production is even cheaper. The more Hollywood cracks down, the more opportunities there will be for grassroots art produced for love instead of money, or for tipping and Street Performer systems.
If Hollywood wants to abandon the most effective marketing system ever invented, I say let them!
For those who need some DRM background (Score:2, Interesting)
Personally, I feel that "Hollywood" should be allowed to create and release whatever they want with DRM, but they should be required to call all such media something other than the common name for the medium. For example, they can release a DRM protected CD, but would not be permitted to call it a CD. Nor should they be allowed to use 'CD' in the name, as that would imply some sort of compatibility with existing CD players. This would probably dissuade the average person from adopting the technology without at least understanding the implications.
Further, they ("Hollywood") should be required to support legacy devices such as DVDs and CDs. When I purchased a DVD player last year, it was with the understanding that current and future media would be released in this format. When the industry adopts a standard and implements it, they should be required to support it for 'x' number of years. Otherwise the consumer pays the cost of their R&D for newer technologies.
-SignalFreq
Re:Speed bumps (Score:3, Interesting)
Link to article (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Alternatives? (Score:5, Interesting)
Congratulations. Unlike the greedy little so-and-sos in Hollywood, you are thinking clearly, and have identified the core problem. However, to get to the beginnings of a solution, you need to throw out a few more assumptions.
Consider the reality of computers and digital media. Computers are machines that, among other things, make perfect copies of digital information. Indeed, computers as we understand them would not be able to function without this ability. Because of this, every computer is like a completely independent factory, fully capable of churning out artifacts identical in quality and characteristics to that of a "manufacturer." Thus, everyone who owns a computer possesses their very own fully-operational factory, which may be turned to whatever purpose its owner wishes. The distinction between a "user" and a "manufacturer", therefore, ceases to exist; all users are likewise manufacturers.
These characteristics have always been true of computers, nor have they ever been secret. Now, given this cold, hard reality, what kind of cretin would create a business model fundamentally based on their company being the sole source of manufactured artifacts, given that all their "customers" are also manufacturers?
It's a mug's game from the word, "Go," and anyone who tells you different has designs on your wallet.
The "solutions" proposed by Hollywood attempt, from a technological point of view, to establish themselves as a sole source -- the only operating factory. To do so, they would need to eliminate all the other factories that aren't theirs, and they propose to do this through Digital Restrictions Mechanisms, eliminating their customers manufacturing capabilities. But to eliminate that capability would be to destroy computers as we know them today. This is why computer scientists and professionals have been laughing in Hollywood's face every time they've raised this issue:
Computers and digital media -- by definition -- come with manufacturing (copying) abilities. You can't eliminate copying without destroying the very computer you're trying to harness.
(Hollywood seems to think that Silicon Valley's inastringency on this issue is born out of politics or petty personality conflicts (since that's the sort of game Hollywood plays all the time). It's not. What they want was proved impossible by Turing decades ago, but they don't get that. It's difficult to explain to someone illiterate in math that 2 + 2 does not and never can equal 5. "Just change the value of 2," they say. Well, then it wouldn't be 2 anymore, would it? ...I digress)
So. If we accept that eliminating all the competing factories out there is Just Not Going To Happen -- that you can never realistically be the sole source of any artifact -- what can you control? What scarce resources do you still control that can't (easily) be taken from you or diluted?
I don't have a complete answer yet. ("WHAT!? I read that whole rant for nothing!?") However, I am firmly convinced that a lasting, workable solution will be founded on giving you control of your time and your reputation. The core idea is that you will build a reputation for yourself -- say, by releasing little code trinkets on the net -- that will draw people to you seeking your expertise. Once done, you charge them for your time, which is still a scarce resource that can't be copied by computers.
The reason I feel this will be important is because I foresee that, one day, physical objects will become as easy to duplicate as digital objects. When that day comes, if we haven't worked out a new socio-economic model that acknowledges and permits free copying to exist, we are fscked. Think Global Civil War-level fscked. You think BMW's just going to let you make copies of their cars? Dream on, loser. It's not gonna happen -- unless they've been slowly weaned into the idea through the socio-economic model built around computers and digital media.
I do not have the Jeffersonian measure of wisdom required to design this new framework entirely on my own, which is why I encourage further discussion on the issue. But the bottom line is, computers have changed the rules. There is now a factory in every home, and scarcity is now a completely artificial construct. Every day we refuse to acknowledge this is another day that we've needlessly screwed ourselves.
Schwab
Re:Sorta OT... (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Alternatives? (Score:4, Interesting)
Please don't say "lower prices" because that's just a rationalization that they're somehow forcing pirates to do it.
Making a moral argument that "Folks who create intangibles are as entitled to compensation as people who build bridges." doesn't remove the problem. I think it creates problems because people will try and hammer reality to fit their beliefs.
Information costs almost ZERO to duplicate. This will always be the case. It costs something to create, but not to duplicate. To me, that suggests that the price of copies should very low, and the price of originals (concerts, let's say) should be higher.
Now, you don't want anyone to say "lower prices", how about "higher value"? I have no idea what that would be, but maybe they should just stop selling "CDs" and start selling something collectible that happens to have music in it, I have no idea. I buy all my CDs out of principle (NO major labels though) so I personally don't need this incentive.
Which brings me to another point, will people stop buying music completely if both legit and non-legit copies are available? I don't think so. I think there will always be people who PAY for their copies, for various reasons. But the music corps have to lower their expectations.
Another point: Why do we even HAVE a global music industry? Why isn't music a local thing: you go to a concert, you talk to the band, you buy their CD out of loyalty and excitement. Why are there superstars at all?
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.
Well, I'm not against trademarks or (most) patents, but I definitely think the concept of copyright is completely broken. It should last 20-30 years, and it should not be a crime to copy without profit. To my mind, this is an capitalistic puzzle: why do you punish people who create a more efficient market? (Yes I understand the argument about giving incentive but there's a balance between giving incentives and forcing people to find their own incentives).
Maybe we should just let things alone, and let people who grew up in this environment figure out a way to benefit from it. Let the principles of capitalism find a way. I believe that forcing people to TRY to make money will be much better than creating a market through government regulation. And we shouldn't be afraid to say "what if it's NOT POSSIBLE to have a music industry any more? what if the music industry has to come back down to earth? what if people can only reliably be paid for creating, not for copying (commissioning a song for a TV commercial, for instance)? What if there IS NO BUSINESS MODEL for albums?".
But, ranting aside, you and I both know that the music industry will regulate and legislate. And their legislation will not strike any balances, and it won't create any new opportunities, and it won't give incentives to anyone unless they use the old business models. Too bad.
Re:Speed bumps (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree - In fact, in my opinion, a company using copy restriction devices is effectively taking the law into their own hands and should lose any protection afforded them by law.
That is:
Company A releases a regular music CD. It is protected by copyright law.
Company B releases a copy-restricted music CD. Because Company B has taken the law into their own hands, the album would not be elegible for copyright protection under the law.
This idea surely would not be popular with IP companies, but is interesting from a pro-consumer standpoint..
Re:disclaimer: worst-case... (Score:2, Interesting)
This the the real long term danger from corporate DRM. Think if all the paintings in the Louvre or Uffizi (Florence) Museum were to have been lost because their 'owners' at the time had chosen to destroy them (the same thing as applying an unbreakable DRM to an art work) hundreds of years ago in order to keep them from being seen by people who hadn't 'paid'.
Re:DIVX rips vs buying a DVD (Score:2, Interesting)
I actually had the opportunity to ask something like this to a sony executive back in June. He basically said that he didn't know why they were doing it. So, the answer to your question is, even they don't know why they are doing it. Most likely, someone thought it was a good idea, and they all just followed.
-CPM
DRM is pointless (Score:2, Interesting)
I recently purchased a CD "Foo Fighters - One by One" This won't play in my DVD Player or my PC even thought there is a label on it saying will play on PC's with the software included.
Problem is my PC (And the DVD) see it as an audio CD with tracks of the right length, but silent, on it.
Oddly enough since I couldn't listen to it, the "CD" went back (I quote CD since it meets no CD standards). I have now told everone I know not to buy this CD and I am never going to buy any music from this company (BMG / RCA) until they stop this lunacy.
I wonder how much it would cost all the retailers to change their 'CD' signs to '12cm pieces of plastic containing stupidly restricted musical content'?
Seriously since these 'protected' dics don't meet any CD standard then they really ought to change the signs. Otherwise I think I will be going to the office of fair trading to say that the venders are misrepresenting the goods. They are claiming to sell me a CD while not doing so.
Mmm Sounds like fun