Welcome to the Future of DRM Media 734
MrFancyPants writes "'DRM, digital rights management, is quite possibly the holy grail of the music and movie industry, allowing them to control exactly how DRM protected content is used, distributed and above all can be tracked right down to the individual end user.' Hardware Analysis reports on a horror story of someone picking up a DVD recently and having to go through an agonizing process of installing DRM-enabled applications to even get it to play on his computer. If this is what the future holds, you'd better think twice about buying DVDs and other media, as you're basically at the mercy of the producer."
self-correcting problem (Score:5, Insightful)
- bitch and complain
- return the product
- don't buy such products in the future.
If what the xxAA sells suits the needs of enough customers, they'll be successful with it. If they're overly restrictive then they'll fail. Obviously they think that most consumers won't mind the limitations, or even notice them.
Is that so difficult to understand? Just because YOU can't rip a DVD doesn't mean that the MPAA will care.
MadCow.
Welome to MY nightmare?... (Score:1, Insightful)
I refuse to financially support this horseshit.
ah, fvck 'em (Score:2, Insightful)
think twice about buying DVDs (Score:4, Insightful)
> the mercy of the producer
Not just that - most users simply aren't capable of installing all that crap even if they wanted to. Loads of people have problems even double or right clicking on something (and I'm not just talking about Apple customers, either).
Mercy mine. (Score:5, Insightful)
They're gonna try this because they are stupid and need to be dragged kicking and screaming into every new market that opens for them, but ultimately the power is in *our* hands because we have the money they want. When we stop buying DVDs that are overpriced and burdensome, they'll dump the DRM.
DRM isn't nearly as valuable to them as... say... having a market for them in the first place. When the returns start coming back to retailers from people like my mother-in-law, they'll relent.
Trust me.
She's very persuasive.
There is a choice, right? (Score:3, Insightful)
As we saw in another slashdot article [slashdot.org], the DVD business makes up a large amount of the Hollywood's profits. Watch the movie in the theatres and don't buy the DVD's and watch the DVD portion of the profits plummet.
Hollywood and the music companies aren't budging. The masses are just accepting what they push down our throats. Perhaps it is time to use our power as consumers?
Always a software solution (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:self-correcting problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Customers should reject this . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
If sales of the DRM versions of films stink, then the powers that be won't be able to implement them profitably. We need to make sure that the cost in lost sales due to DRM techniques pissing of the customer exceed the lost sales due to the media being copiable. Of course this is easier said than done, as there are millions of customers that need to be organized versus just a few production companies that can easily rally together, but it is the only way that production companies will get the message.
It's like DIVX (no, not the video compression, the now defunct DVD competitor that had embedded DRM), DIVX movies were cheaper than DVD's but they had a limited license that had to be renewed for multiple viewing (like pay per view). Customers rejected it and it (thankfully) died an ugly death.
The Big Problem... (Score:3, Insightful)
Analog hole (Score:5, Insightful)
At some point, no matter how high-tech the DRM gets, the data must be presented in a form humans can perceive. All the encryption in the world won't stop little Mikey from holding a microphone up to the outputs and making a non-DRM copy.
To anyone who says that such a copy will be inferior in quality, I note two points:
1) The loss only occurrs once. The non-DRM copy can then be shared digitally with no further loss of quality.
2) The original work was recorded from the air. The band actually played its song, or the actor actually did his thing. If similar technology is used to create the non-DRM copy, the loss will be negligible. (Imagine a home theatre system set up on a soundstage in someone's basement, with pickups and equipment to record its "performance")
People also seem to have this irrational fear that the old technology will suddenly disappear. My digital camcorder is pretty good, and it will still exist when the world is DRM'd. So will my mp3 player, and so will my non-DRM compliant microphones.
Furthermore, there will be a high demand for DRM-noncompliant technology. Even if it is illegal, I predict a briskly moving black market in such technology. If there's a dollar to be made, someone will make it.
As for watermarking: pay cash.
Re:self-correcting problem (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:More About DRM (Score:3, Insightful)
A Losing Battle (Score:3, Insightful)
At the other extreme, as usual, DRM will not stop the real pirates who have time and resources to defeat any DRM scheme. So ironically for Microsoft and the entertainment industry, people will still be able to get cheaper pirate DVDs they will happily play in DVD players that do not (in most cases) use any Microsoft technology. Knowledgable PC users (ie geeks) will continue to find ways to get around DRM and/or b*tch about it here on
Re:self-correcting problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:think twice about buying DVDs (Score:3, Insightful)
The article says that he had to route his connection through an anonymous proxy in the US to get a DRM licence to view his legitimately purchased content - are you telling me that the masses would know how to do this? I think not.
Re:self-correcting problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, people don't have to buy the movie if they don't like the DRM involved. But they had better make a lot of noise about it if that's the reason.
The movie industry can write off a movie that fails to sell, for whatever reason. They'll just assume that people simply dislike the movie. There's always another movie to take it's place.
You need to add the shout out (however it can get to the movie industry) that the sole reason for not buying it is the DRM.
Re:ah, fvck 'em (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, if you insit on violating the IP rights of others, or supporting that violation (whether explicitly or implicitly, eg by modding up this sort of comment), then don't complain when someone takes GPLed code, modifies it, then releases it without making the source available.
Re:Mercy mine. (Score:5, Insightful)
More so, with our supermegacorporateconglomerates that we have today, it will truly be universal. There will be no competing products for people to "vote for with their dollars". The only way to vote against DRM then, will be to become some type of mountain man Ted Kascinzki-style, who abhors and retreats from any and all entertainment (and in the case of computer software, even useful computer tools/utilities).
Go ahead, wait for magic capitalism to "correct" this, to rescue you from it.
Re:Mercy mine. (Score:5, Insightful)
The vast majority of people don't play DVD's on their computers (yet). As long as the DVD will play on an "approved" DVD player, they will continue to buy them. Before long, all DVD's will come with DRM.
If people could organize a mass boycott of these DRM'd DVD's, and make it work, the MPAA might take notice. I doubt, however, it would work.
I used to say "vote with your wallet" on these very threads, but I've become disillusioned, and no longer even try.
Remember - DVD's are not a necessity (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:ah, fvck 'em (Score:2, Insightful)
SHOUT to Artisan Entertainment (Score:5, Insightful)
Return the DVD to the store for a refund.
If you don't hit them in the sales, they'll NEVER hear your message. If you keep the DVD and gripe online, they won't HEAR your message quite as clearly as if you return it. True, they will see reduced revenue as Slashdotters stay away from the DVD, but it won't be quite as direct.
Re:ah, fvck 'em (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Mercy mine. (Score:4, Insightful)
I wish that were true.
Unfortunately the power is in their hands, because they own the politicians who make the laws that govern us.
What about elvis. (Score:3, Insightful)
So, what about DRM.
if I download Elvis from Real and they put DRM on the track how the hell am I supposed to make as many copies of the public domain work as I want?
This is based on the assumption that...
DRM is technical not artistic so it doesn't count as a new work, just a copy.
Real used the original Elvis recording (or copy of).
you live in the UK (or possibly the EU as well)
But still holds true in 50 years time when that DRM music you purchased comes out of copyright, how can you then put it into the public domain?
Re:self-correcting problem (Score:2, Insightful)
"Buy the movie now." False advertising? (Score:5, Insightful)
If the commercial says "Buy the movie now" but the packaging says you are only licensing the movie, isn't this called false advertising?
Shouldn't the commercial be "Get your license to view this movie as we see fit, including 20 minutes of commercials that play each time you view the movie - which you cannot skip."?
And "piracy" perpetuates problem, doesn't solve it (Score:3, Insightful)
It's only logical; the more people "pirate", the tighter the industries are going to try to clamp down. All at the expense of legitimate users who just want to watch/listen to what they paid for.
Let's face it, folks. DRM didn't just will itself into existence. It was the industries' response to people who wantonly ignored copyright laws for the sake of getting something without paying for it. Simply doing more of the same isn't going to make it go away.
Want to get rid of DRM? Stop buying CDs. Stop going to concerts. Stop buying DVDs. Stop going to the theatre. Cutting off revenue isn't going to be enough, as the industries can simply blame it on "piracy". Cutting off DEMAND would force them to address the true problem.
Say Hello to Divx... Again (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't be surprised when it makes a comeback in HD-DVD or BluRay. Regardless of how catastrophic a failure Divx was it was exactly what the MPAA wanted, which was a way to tell a DVD not to play unless the MPAA says so.
Simply put, the MPAA knows that the box office is eventually going to die. I mean why go to a cineplex and pay outrageous prices (for tickes and food) and then have to deal with cell phones and babies making a ton of noise in a sticky seat when you can just watch it in your own home theather on your couch with the same visual and audio quality on a HDTV.
Basicially their overall plan is to shift ticket sales from the Movie Theather to your Home Theather. It's already on in the Cable and Satellite Industry and it's going to start soon on the DVD side, if not with HD-DVD or Bluray then with the Next Format.
The Indiscriminator (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:self-correcting problem (Score:4, Insightful)
If a movie comes out with your favorite actor, you have two choices. Suck up the DRM and give away basic consumer rights, or not see the movie. Neither of which are good options IMO.
The sad thing is that the movie companies are making it _easier_ and a better alternative to go and illegally obtain movies off of P2P or some other method.
NOT digital rights management (Score:5, Insightful)
Who do you think invented that term? if you call it digital rights management you are playing right into their pathetic marketing game. Call it digital restrictions management - a far more fitting description?
Re:self-correcting problem (Score:3, Insightful)
That's what he was doing and what were doing as well. Self correcting doesn't mean we can just sit back and it will be corrected. Self correcting means that if we act as typical people do it will be corrected. And our complaining is acting in a typical person way.
No Win Situation (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:ah, fvck 'em (Score:2, Insightful)
DRM is about total control by the copyright owner. No one can do anything with the copyrighted work, which, in some cases, includes those things that Fair Use would otherwise permit.
So yes, grandparent was Insightful. Recent legislation concerning DRM and the "rights" of copyright holders is largely nonsense. Please ignore it.
Re:DRM personally offensive (Score:3, Insightful)
(budget and sales figures from IMDB [imdb.com]
Re:think twice about buying DVDs (Score:5, Insightful)
Every day, I have to explain the difference between a slash and a backslah. Twice last year I had to tell someone what a colon was. A few times every week I have to explain right clicking to someone. Almost every day, I have to explain to at least one person the difference between their operating system and their browser, or the difference between the internet and their browser, and especially the difference between AOL and their browser.
I'm sorry you're offended that slashdotters are eager to point out the general ignorance of the public at large in re: computers, but your offense doesn't make it not so.
This doesn't, of course, mean that slashdotters are better, smarter, or superior to the average person. We're just better with computers. I have no illusions about being able to perform pulpotomies, gingival debridements, or apicoectomies. I am not superior to the dentists I support. But I do no a metric fuckton more about computers than they do, and I'm faced with the appalling - to me - breadth of their ignorance on a daily basis.
I'm sure at ADA conventions, dentists complain about the general ignorance of the public about proper oral hygiene and dental care. In fact, I know they do, because our dental directors (all of whom, obviously, have their own DDSs) complain about this ignorance all the time. Your surprise that a group of people who are knowledgeable about a field complains about the ignorance of people who aren't knowledgeable about it is somewhat surprising to me.
Re:think twice about buying DVDs (Score:3, Insightful)
I have never met anyone who uses a computer and doesn't realize the difference between left click, right click and double click.
You lucky, lucky bastard. I have to deal with that all the time.
Re:my story. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:ah, fvck 'em (Score:5, Insightful)
Based on the current situation, I personally don't think it is a big deal to pay money to rent a DVD and then keep a copy for _personal_ use only.
If the current situation was not how it currently is with DRM and all the other crap, then I _would_ think it was wrong to rent a DVD and then keep a copy for _personal_ use. Because the system would be balanced between producer and consumer and _everyone_ would get a fair shake.
That is why I don't feel sorry for all the people crying about "thier IP rights". Stop taking away _my_ rights as a customer and I won't take away your "IP" rights. Just sell me a product with NO DRM and then get off my back. Don't try and stop me from making a backup for _personal_ use. Don't try and stop me from watching the content where and how I want to. I paid you, now leave me alone until it is time for our next "business transaction".
Predictions (Score:4, Insightful)
I believe they are hoping to make stored home media a thing of the past.
Think of the profit on this idea. They store the media and just play it back for you on demand and each time, they get more money. It's not like a public performance where the actors get paid for each time they act. The makers get paid once. The publishers get paid forever.
I don't like where things are going, but who does? I can see where all kinds of "inconvenience" will be installed when playing back your old stuff or even current and new stuff. If it weren't for VCRs learning to set their own time, I'll be there'd be MORE VCRs blinking 12:00 than not even now... how much worse will it be when you are required to have a broadband internet connection just to play your own damned movies thanks to DRM.?
Re:self-correcting problem (Score:5, Insightful)
That depends wether you honor the law. If I've learned anything about the Microsoft trials, it's that it's perfectly OK to break the law as long as you don't get caught.
And quite frankly, that's what a lot of people do: They see that their DRM-stuff forces them to watch the stupid anti-piracy trailer every time they want to see the movie, they will have to worry about license servers, they can't copy the stuff to their mp3-player, etc. Just hassles.
As a matter of fact, a pirated copy is not only cheaper, it's also a lot better.
Re:ah, fvck 'em (Score:3, Insightful)
Entirely incorrect. The GPL is still about an author's control of a piece of work insomuch as the author stipulates that his work falls under the GPL and is beholden to the rules stated therein. You've missed the point of the parent's post entirely, that both the GPL and the xxAA are 'entities' that function solely due to copyright so we can not selectively decide copyright is bad in some cases and good in others, just because it benefits us. If the GPL were truly about 'abscence' of control, then I could literally due anything I wanted with the code, including not releasing it. The GPL is not a law, it is only given force through copyrights, which are laws that allow the author to choose how his work is distributed
Re:self-correcting problem (Score:2, Insightful)
If it doesn't meet your needs then you return the fuckin' thing. What good is it if it doesn't play on your computer? What if you watched it last week, and wanted to watch it again on an airplane trip, but didn't have the 'net connection to renew the 5-day licence? I mean fuck, if you've got the damn disc, what more licence should you really need?
If you like the movie that much, and can't play it in your hardware, than you should return it and tell everyone the trouble you went through trying to watch your favorite movie; by "everyone" I mean the director, the producers, the studio, the store, your congress person, state Attorny General, local & national newspapers, Maury Povich, literally everyone that may shed some attention on the issue. Like other posters have stated, the MPAA doesn't give a fuck if some slashdotter couldn't play a movie, but will change their ways if pressured -- economically or legally -- to.
There is a choice, right?-YES! There is. (Score:1, Insightful)
Here's a novel thought. Maybe the masses aren't as affected as "/."'s believe. They can go many places and get the content* they want (legally even). Everyone here bitches about the economics of the situation, but the masses overall ARE getting what THEY WANT. This is reflected in the fact that sales overall are up. So exactly why should they get involved in YOUR battle? They didn't start it. They might have to FINISH IT, because of all the misguided actions by those who don't know better. But then history's loaded with the masses having to clean up after the misguided actions of a few (WWI & II)
*Everything that's used as justification for piracy. From valve's games, to harry potter books, from movies, to music.
I think you're wrong. Sorry. (Score:2, Insightful)
C'mon. The industry has always been about DRM. When piano rolls were popular, there were forms of copyprotection on that. When computers became popular, the industry tried copy protection. When CD's were introduced, the copyprotection was that you couldn't reproduce them.
DRM is not a response to piracy, although it is viewed as reducing the amount.
DRM is about control. Way back in the days of the jukebox, people couldn't afford to buy a lot of music. But they could afford to put a nickel in the jukebox...pay per play.
Back when movies could only be viewed in the theater, and they could be put on TV with no fear of copying. There was effective copy control, and while it wasn't DRM as such, it was the best they could do.
The industry LOVED this model. To this day, they are trying to get back to the model where they decide how and how much you can view "their" content.
Its not about piracy, its about getting more money for you for what you have now for free.
Legitimate CDs and Philips (Score:5, Insightful)
As someone who doesn't illegally rip material, I'm starting to find all the DRM stuff annoying.
I bought Dido's second album, for example, only to discover that you can only play it on a PC through a proprietary software player (assuming your OS will run it, naturally). That player sucks, and does annoying things like messing up my system-wide volume levels. I haven't tried personally, but I'm reliably informed that it doesn't work in some car CD players, either.
The point here is that what I bought was marketted as a CD. It was right there on the shelf in the CD section, next to other CDs, with nothing obviously saying that it wasn't. To be fair, there may have been a note about whether or not you could play it on certain computers visible in the small print; I can't remember and don't have it with me to check. But who reads all the small print when buying a CD from the CD section of a shop?
Now, "Compact disc" is a trademark of Philips, as is the CD logo you see on cases. Philips officially denies permission to use that mark to companies using technology that prevents playing the disc properly on standard equipment. (Google for this if you're interested.) Thus anyone marketting the material in the manner I saw it (be it a record shop, the music publishers, or whoever) is infringing on Philips' rights, and deserves to get smacked down for it.
It's a shame Philips don't seem to be pursuing this more aggressively, because preventing this kind of dilution of a mark is exactly what trademark law is for. I imagine that if all record shops were suddenly required to separate out normal CDs and copy-protected not-quite-CDs in an obvious way, sales of the latter would probably drop PDQ, and the problem would disappear just as fast. I can only assume that since everyone's doing it, they want a clear test case in their favour first to make it quick, easy, and most of all cheap to follow up with others. Maybe they're looking for such a test case and just waiting to make their move. Maybe they just don't care, but as one of the world's biggest manufacturers of CD/DVD burners, that seems unlikely.
Anyway, the bottom line is that I really haven't bought a new CD since that album. I was always fairly selective, but I did buy a few each year until that point. So they really have lost a genuine, paying customer in me. I don't find the loss has ruined my life; I listen to the radio if I want to hear some new music, and occasionally use a legal download service if I really like a track I've heard. Now I'm a living own-goal for the media industry's DRM technology. Anyone else?
Re:self-correcting problem (Score:5, Insightful)
First, a DVD Player manfacturer _is_ allowed to copy his competitors goods. One manfacturer can go and put the same exact features in their product that their competitor has. They can even add _more_ features or keep the same features and sell it for less money. That is called competition.
Second, I would like to see you get the _same_ actors as were in the Spiderman movies and shoot a Spiderman movie. You would be in court in no-time and you would not be allowed to release that movie. Go and get all the actors that were in The Lord of the Ring trilogy and shoot a Lord of the Rings movie set in the Tokien world. You would be in court in no-time and you would not be allowed to release that movie. Go and get the actors that have been in the Star Wars movies and shoot a Star Wars movie. You would be in court in no-time and you would not be allowed to release that movie. [INSERT BIG TICKET MOVIE HERE] and clone it with the same actors, and let us see how far you get.
In fact, can you give me ONE example of a big movie that someone came along and made a _very_ similar themed movie with the _same_ actors? Oh, and the movie had to be done by a _different_ studio.
Re:And "piracy" perpetuates problem, doesn't solve (Score:5, Insightful)
DVD regions were added to control distribution, in order to make as much money as possible. Now, people got fed up, and started cracking it as a response, or they simply downloaded the DVD or DVD-rip instead of having to wait for the latest and greatest movies to reach their country/region.
DRM is ultimately about control, as this story proves. It is not about piracy at all. It's about forcing people to license things for limited periods of time, thereby squeezing more money out of us.
Don't kid yourself with ignorant comments like "it was the industries' response to people who wantonly ignored copyright laws". It wasn't at all. It's just an excuse. DRM is about controlling distribution and forcing people to pay more for less.
Re:Double Standards (Score:2, Insightful)
IIRC, Half Life 2 did say you needed an Internet Connection + a Steam account to play on the packaging. That's the difference.
Now, if you don't like the HL2 registration system, at least you can choose to reject it by reading the box.
Re:self-correcting problem (Score:3, Insightful)
Seems pretty illogical when we wanted to buy a more expensive one.
Planting both feet at the head of the line in the exchange aisle, and refusing to move, talking our way up the manager list is what it took for us to spend more money.
One might think, "Why spend your money there", but what I really was doing was cashing in on about $250 worth of gift cards, which I had been asking for the last 2 years worth of b-day and x'mas's.
Best Buy is very expensive now. No good deals. Customer service sucks. We no longer shop there. I don't miss it at all, because there's really no great gadgets to shop for in there. CompUSA has more gadgetry, you can get high end stuff at newegg, and there are better deals at target/shopko/walmart.
What DRM is REALLY REALLY REALLY about (Score:5, Insightful)
You see, there is a parallel to the industrial revolution here in the information age.
History teaches that during the 1800's there were many people who believed that the entire meaning and purpose of the industrial revolution was to leverage inventions like the cotton gin to expand their plantations for unlimited growth and profit.Ironically just the opposite was true,the industrial revolution actually demanded a mobile and skilled workforce.
They responded first by making slavery last forever, and making laws so harsh you couldn't even teach a black person how to read. Then they responded by trying to micro-regulate the northern states, then they responded by trying to break off from the Union and fence themselves off from the rest of the world, and all hell broke loose.
Today many in media circles believe that the entire meaning and purpose of the information age is to use inventions like the internet to leverage their copyright holdings to the far reaches of the earth for unlimited growth and profit.Ironically,just the opposite is true,the information age demands the unrestricted flow of information.
At first they responded my making copyrights last effectively forever, then they responded by making it so that illegal copying could be punished worse than rape, then they tried to micro-regulate the tech industries (DMCA) then they fence the information that they controlled off from the rest of the world (DRM). It is only a matter of time before society tells them to go to hell, and all hell breaks loose.
Re:self-correcting problem (Score:3, Insightful)
You can learn much more by the aftermath of the Microsoft trials: You can be guilty, be convicted, then run along free, if the President's brain trust doesn't like the anti-monopoly laws.
Apparently you can selectively nullify laws you don't agree with, if your name is Ashcroft.
But don't try it at home. Copy a movie, and you'll get a prison sentence more heinous than that you'd get if you'd committed manslaughter.
Lawful != right. Wrong != unlawful.
Missing the wolves (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:my story. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:self-correcting problem (Score:3, Insightful)
This is wrong, because the competition is every other form of entertainment ever devised by humans.
For example:
-- playing a game with family
-- reading a book
-- taking the dog for a walk
-- go see a stand up comedian
-- get drunk
-- read the Sunday funnies
-- play with legos with the kids
We don't have to watch any movie. What do you lose if you choose to do something else? Two sentences of meaningless smalltalk at work ("Hey, you see that movie?" "Yup." "Whaddya think about that hot chick at the end?" "Yup.").
Re:More About DRM (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry, but that is wrong, and the fight is over if this nonsense is perpetuated.
DRM means "digital restriction mangement". Please don't help sell the idea that this is about the RIAA's or the MPAA's rights. It isn't
If you use their words, and allow the discussion to procede on their terms, you've ceded the fight.
Re:What DRM is REALLY REALLY REALLY about (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:"Buy the movie now." False advertising? (Score:2, Insightful)
This Hollywood is one reason why I make copies of ALL my DVDs. If you stop me making copies, I stop buying. TaDA!
Re:think twice about buying DVDs (Score:1, Insightful)
A few times every week I have to explain right clicking to someone.
Maybe there is some logic behind Apple's default one button Macintosh mouse after all?
Not that any of these Windows Media DRM tools will ever work on MacOS X (or anything other than Windows)...
Good luck (Score:2, Insightful)
Unless you give consumers what they want, they will continue to get it elsewhere - ie online. I stopped buying dvd's and going to movies because of the obscene amount of protection (installing a drm'ed player!) and advertising (up to 30 minutes!) involved, respectively. The only source that actually offers me what I the consumer, want, is bittorrent. So that is where I will go.
I don't care about free movies; $5-$10 is a price I will happily pay to save my time. All I want is content that I can access when and how I want, without advertising. God forbid the movie industry offer this to the public. The further they get from actually giving consumers what they want, the more people will, like me, turn to illegal methods to get the product they want.
It's funny... in world economics, we learned the same lesson from Soviet Russia: the more you try to break the market, the more the market breaks you.