Interview With The MPEG Committee's Founder 91
JasonFleischer points out this "interview with Leonardo Chiariglione, digital video pioneer and founder of the MPEG standards committee, is available on the public access section Scientific American's website. In the interview Chiariglione explains the motivations and hopes for his new Digital Media Project -- an attempt to integrate existing technologies to create a transparent, universal, non-proprietary system for digital rights management. Of particular interest to some /.ers may be his old article from Linux Journal that talks about the relationship between Open Source and MPEG standards."
YAGDS (Score:4, Interesting)
DMP sounds like a nice idea on paper, but will the recording studios ever go for something that will allow people to share files, even if playback is (supposedly) limited to subscribers-only? How long before such playback limitations are cracked just like the DRM for iTunes?
I have yet to see the uncrackable DRM scheme, and no reason to assume one can ever exist. If humans can write it, humans can break it.
Re:YAGDS (Score:1, Insightful)
Yeah? Try decrypting PGP when you don't have the right key.
Re:YAGDS (Score:5, Insightful)
Besides, the question's irrelevant. DRM via encryption to a subscriber's key? Whatever. If the subscriber can generate a listenable stream (which is, duh, kinda the point), then it's possible to turn that stream into a non-DRMed file. Anyone with legitimate access can create illegitimate access if they're so inclined and have the technical skill to do it. And, if the readership (postership) of /. is any indication, there's no shortage of people who are so inclined.
Re:YAGDS (Score:2, Interesting)
I actually see "un-DRM"-ing a file by porting the output stream to some DRM-free format as a case of compromising the messenger
Re:YAGDS (Score:2)
Re:YAGDS (Score:5, Insightful)
The iTunes crack does exactly that.
Re:YAGDS (Score:2)
May I point out that Fairplay does at the same time a lot more and a lot less than protecting the copyright?
It inhibits many ways of legit use yet it allow many ways of infringing on the copyright (e.g. it allows unauthorized public performance and broadcasting)
Re:YAGDS (Score:1)
Re:YAGDS (Score:5, Insightful)
Lets be even more to the point: It is physically impossible for there to exist a non-proprietary DRM scheme. DRM, by very nature, is security through obscurity -- hiding the secret key *somewhere* on the users' own machine. DRM is incompatible with the concept of general purpose computing and most certainly with Open Source software. As an analogy, think of those old pay-TV decoder boxes that were filled with epoxy or tar to prevent tampering.. Is that what you want your computer to become? Just say no to DRM-laden hardware, software, and content! And do support independent media!
Re:YAGDS (Score:1)
Re:YAGDS (Score:1)
So make machines write the DRM code and have em obfuscate it. The machines can pick from a variety, modifications or variations of known encryption and obfuscation methods.
Have the machine assemble this to one huge pile of code, heavily guarded and very difficult to reverse engineer.
Then sign this chunk of code, add anti-tampering layers and distribute it only on TCPA protected machines. Voila. There's your strong DRM scheme.
Of course with the money needed to do that you could also fund the Mars mission.
MPEG 50 years from now? (Score:3, Insightful)
Granted MPEG is not broadcast / archival quality (correct me if I am wrong), but regardless there will be a lot of material that exists only in MPEG. Long term preservation and access need to be addressed, and are hobbled by kludges like DRM and vendor lock-in.
If you don't have the technology to render the file, then it's as good as gone. Even physical safes, lock boxes and fire boxes only slow down an intruder, and are rated at the estimated number of minutes
Re:MPEG 50 years from now? (Score:5, Informative)
You are wrong.
MPEG-2 as used for Digital TV broadcasts runs anywhere from around 3mbps (megabits per second) for drama content or talking heads/news, up to 8mbps for more dynamic content such as sports.
MPEG-2 for production can go above 50mbps, and sure is good enough for archival !!!
Re:MPEG 50 years from now? (Score:4, Insightful)
This will happen because unbreakable DRM will become routinely applied to recordings while the keys to unlock these recordings will be abandoned by the music corporations as the recordings lose their profitability over time.
This has happened to a certain extent with early twentyth century media such a silent films of the 1910-1930 era. These works had their media base as a silver-nitrate film stock. When the copyright issues were finally resolved to allow reproduction of many of the old movies of the era, most of the film had decayed in the film canisters into dust. Or they had been reprocessed in order to recover their silver content with the film's movie content assumed to be worthless.
Another example of cultural destruction is the permanent copyright extension policy of the USA. Old novels and books from the 1920-1960 era can never be legally copied under these misguided laws, and as their paper wears out, their content is destroyed. The one-a-year literary masterpieces that still retain marginal commercial value are allowed to be copied, but the vast majority of books written in this era are disappearing. When the paper disintregrates, the entire era's literary output disappears.
It seems odd that the Americans would allow the entire literary output of their golden age to disappear in order to protect the copyright of a single company's cartoon character. But it always seems that the Americans are always the last to recognize the long-term value of their accomplishments. In fifty years the only place to get American novels from the early twentyth century will be from Japanese collectors at very high prices.
DRM is not good for the RIAA (Score:3, Insightful)
Assuming that the DRM actually works and prevents anyone from making a quick and clear copy of an audio recording, DRM technology encourages the RIAA companies (soon to be one company with the extensive mergers in this industry) to raise
Sounds good... (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Sounds good... (Score:1)
Kazaa is so last decade, last century - BitTorrent is the current fad. Get with it...
Some people will love it, just not users (Score:5, Insightful)
For example, you could play a specific title until a certain date, or you could buy a subscription allowing you to play anything you want for a given period.
That's what he is working on. I'm sure the RIAA loves the idea of "rental" music.
Apple not only has a more solid model of music ownership with itunes, they will have done it first. Luckily this project is going to show up late to the party when they unveil it two years from now.
Nothing new here. Move on.
Re:Some people will love it, just not users (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Some people will love it, just not users (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Some people will love it, just not users (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Some people will love it, just not users (Score:3, Insightful)
No late fees. I like that.
No hassle of going back to the rental place to return it. I like that.
I can easily pira^H^H^H^Hbackup a DVD within 72 hours. Yay!
Down points:
No late fees. The rental place hates that.
No hassle of going back to the rental place to return it. The rental place hates that - they want me to come back and rent again.
I can easily back^H^H^H^Hpirate a DVD within 72 hours. AAAAAACCCCKKKKK!
Re:Some people will love it, just not users (Score:1)
I would assume nothing prevents that from happening. Perhaps this was before decss became commonplace? Unfortunately I don't know the details.
Actually, I think maybe it was. Or some other mcguyver-style flick.
Very valid points... I hadn't thought about those 3 bullets you ment
Re:Some people will love it, just not users (Score:1)
Actually, it was tried, but it failed. The copying issue was a major concern. Many people believed that a cheaper availability of DVD movies (as apposed to what had already been ripped, or the higher cost of buying or renting a 'real' DVD)would encourage people to copy the movies simply for the pleasure of owning a pseudo purchased movie for really cheap.
What also turne
Re:Some people will love it, just not users (Score:1)
Re:Some people will love it, just not users (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple not only has a more solid model of music ownership with itunes, they will have done it first. Luckily this project is going to show up late to the party when they unveil it two years from now.
Emphasis mine, of course.
I think you hit the nail on the head. I read the first article (well, the paper about MPEG and OSS) and couldn't help but think he was trying to say "let's work together, but we're not budging". And that's not helping the problem anyway. Compromise, right? Both sides have to give.
When I read the interview, I couldn't help but think he was right in a lot of ways, such as when he talks about how the experience isn't any different now than it was before digital music (at least, before digital music like we know it now). Sure we can rip our CDs and carry them around on a series of nice-looking and nice-working mp3 players (I have one of my own, but it's CD-based :( ). Great. But the experience hasn't changed. Not until I buy that $400 device from those River people, anyway. But I also couldn't help but think "too little too late". If they had worried about the DRM stuff 10 years ago, all the problems we're having now would have been averted.
See, it looks to me like he's honestly trying to keep fair use rights, even if he's not formally saying "fair use". He wants the digital experience to be realized by everyone, and he knows that content producers (or in the case of record labels, content distributors, blech) have to come on board for it to really work. It's pretty obvious (and I think this guy knows it, based on the interview) that people want the "digital experience" for which he's trying to create a standard and therefore an opportunity, and people are trying to make it happen on their own, and even having limited success (I must admit that my own music collection is more portable than it has ever been and more accessible in the process, and I've done the same with my movie collection).
The problem is that it's too little too late. He mentioned the stalemate he's trying to resolve, but I don't see it resolving his way. For one thing, I'm not jumping on his bandwagon without at least some solid clarification, and if he and the content producers/distributors want to get my money, they must give their part of the compromise, whatever that may be. I'll give my part, I'm offering it! But I want something in return, and if there's anything I've learned about the content producers/distributors, they need to give first. 'Cause if they don't, then I'll give and give and give, and they'll take and take and take, and before you know it I've given them everything for nothing in return.
Compromise or obsolescence will resolve this stalemate, and neither side seems to be willing to compromise at this time. Maybe if the RIAA and MPAA got a little less agressive and a little more giving then we'd give right back. Maybe. At least with the RIAA and the record labels we can (and are!) starting to take steps to render them obsolete. You'd think that makes compromise inevitable, wouldn't you? ;)
As far as actual formats go, I don't think I'd mind a whole lot having music files that couldn't be played after a period of time. Nor would I mind if my copy couldn't be played by someone else. Not a whole lot at all, in fact. What I do mind is that all the DRM schemes so far proposed require closed source phone home software. For my own sanity and conscience I require software installed on my computer to come with the source code, or at least that it's readily available. And I also require no phone home software that might phone home with my privacy in its packets. And I also require that if software does phone home, I know what it does, what it sends, and so forth (hence one reason among many why I require the source code to any program I install on my machine). If they can make the format work and still meet these requirements, I'm giving and they'r
Chiariglione states, then ignores, the benefits. (Score:5, Insightful)
Any band, big or small, that goes on tour has it's own CDs, I've even seen buskers in the subway with their own CDs.
Old and young people are compiling playlists from CDs they've bought or been given and playing them on the stereo or via a jukebox on their computer.
Amateur films and short films have been made very easy. No need to book time weeks in advance on equipment costing hundreds or millions. Go see a short film or youth film festival these days.
Home films and photography have taken off. Even retired people are sending around digital images, raw or touched up, of family and friends. I know people pushing 70 that edit and burn their holiday videos to DVD. Try that with 8mm or Super8.
Many musical instruments now have MIDI ports -- and they're being used.
There are more and more Zines on every subject imaginable. 15 years ago these were made with effort, but now there are many tools like Quark, Illustrator, PageMaker, etc.
Plain old books are being written and published like never before.
So, yes, maybe industry has missed the boat like he says, but let's not forget that industry is the result of customer demand not the other way around. If no one is buying buggy whips, then stop selling them, look around and sell what people are buying. The end users are enjoying new kinds of experiences as predicted, but some of the former players in industry have ignored or fought the new opportunities for business. Why should they be subsidized with our effort if they cannot find a profitable business model that suits the times and technology?
Patents (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What about Ogg Vorbis (Score:2, Insightful)
2) For Joe Blow MP3 is a synonymous for all digital music.
3) Joe Blow doesn't care about patent issues as long as he gets to listen to music on his Windows.
Any "standard" which you need a licence for... (Score:5, Insightful)
Any standards body worth dealing with should insist that patent holders licence the patents such as is necessary to implement the standard with no royalties.
Re:Any "standard" which you need a licence for... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Any "standard" which you need a licence for... (Score:1)
Re:Any "standard" which you need a licence for... (Score:5, Insightful)
The point of a standard is to get everyone to use it.
The point of a patent is to grant a monopoly.
If you want everyone to use something, it's stupid to then claim a patent on it.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Eleventh president indeed... (Score:3, Interesting)
The "point" of a patent is to reward sharing an innovation with a temporary monopoly. Although this has been subverted in such a way that permanent monopolies are granted for lack of innovation, that's not the point...
Re:Eleventh president indeed... (Score:2)
The _method_ of doing this is to provide a reward for the inventor. But that's not the actual purpose.
Your misconception is like saying that rewards for criminals are offered so that money can be given to informers, when the real point is to apprehend criminals.
I agree that there are amazingly huge prob
Re:Eleventh president indeed... (Score:2)
My parent suggested that the purpose of a patent is to "grant a monopoly". Which it is most certainly not. I was just trying to clarify that the granting of a monopoly is a reward for sharing the invention. I'll pick my wording more carefully next time.
You: Offering a reward for catching a criminal.
Result: Informants share information leading to criminals being caught, results in a r
Re:Any "standard" which you need a licence for... (Score:3, Informative)
At least that was the initial intent. Just browse the patent databases and look how much knowledge there is for everyone to see.
Re:Any "standard" which you need a licence for... (Score:2)
Re:Any "standard" which you need a licence for... (Score:3, Interesting)
I think the point that the parent was making is something like this:
What if I patent $TECHNOLOGY, and say "I will grant an implicit (and free-as-in-beer) patent licence for $TECHNOLOGY to anyone, on the condition that their implementation must conform to my standard, without proprietary extensions.".
Would this kind of defensive licencing have prevented the Microsoft Kerberos fiasco?
Re:Any "standard" which you need a licence for... (Score:2)
The purpose of a patent is to stop people from doing the things that it covers (unless they do what the patent holder wants).
A "standard" which is patent encumbered is not a standard. Only some people in some circumstances even have the choice of doing things that way. E.g., if the patent holder demands that you pay them money for each transaction, then clearly anyone developing GPL software cannot use that
Re:Any "standard" which you need a licence for... (Score:2, Insightful)
In this case, of course, as has been pointed out, they are trying to develop what RIAA wants, though it is already out there. I'm sure that even Microsoft's WindowsMedia format is more likely to become a standard. But neither WMA nor MPEG is likely to beat Apple's AAC format. Let's face it: Apple has pioneered the online music store just like Am
Re:Any "standard" which you need a licence for... (Score:1)
Re:Any "standard" which you need a licence for... (Score:1)
AAC is the audio codec of MPEG 4.
Who wants to read books that are chained to the library?
The reference section was pretty popular last time I checked.
Re:Any "standard" which you need a licence for... (Score:1)
AAC uses the MPEG standard and extends it. It's like if I soup up my car. Is it still a Ford? Technically yes. But it's unlikely that Ford will start building cars like that. Unless I've done something really brilliant, in which case, Ford will have to pay me for the rights.
Now... Apple has spread their modification all over the universe in the process of selling music. It is indeed possible that the MPEG group will say, hey, that's a brilliant implementation of DRM. However, I greatly doubt t
Re:Any "standard" which you need a licence for... (Score:2)
Irony (Score:3, Funny)
There's a deep irony in that phrase, if you look at it the right way.
Unsettling (Score:5, Interesting)
Is it just me, or is it very unsettling that the mastermind behind the revolution that has brought MP3, DVD and digital television into the lives of millions does not know the difference between illegal copying and theft? They are even in very different parts of the justice system (civil vs. criminal law IIRC, IANAL).
Re:Unsettling (Score:3, Informative)
Atleast he wasn't comparing it to committing theft in the high seas...
Jeroen
Re:Unsettling (Score:1)
I think his judgement has been more than a little skewed by money. If not the money that he's likely bribed with to support this or that, than it's in the royalties he's likely to earn from "the creator of MPEG's 'trusted' new format." As I am sure it will be just as (if not more) lad
On behalf of horny geeks ... (Score:4, Funny)
I thank you and your committee for making authentic porn a reality.
How about listening? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:How about listening? (Score:1)
Re:How about listening? (Score:1)
Re:How about listening? (Score:3, Insightful)
For any reasonable definition of copyright, you have not. The purpose of copyright is to strike a useful balance while acknowledging the natural ability and desire of people to copy ideas, works, and music, and share them with others. That's what we call culture. At the same time, we wish to promote the authorship of such content and make it possible to make a
Re:How about listening? (Score:2)
This change in the nature of copying is what makes updating the copyright laws a challenge
Re:How about listening? (Score:2)
There's a logical fallacy in this statement. Before copyrights, it's not a problem of people profiting from copyrights they don't own -- there is no such thing, if there are no copyrights. The problem that copyrights were designed to solve was that it was difficult for an artist or author to get compensation. There is *nothing* inherently wrong with profiting from copyrights you don't own. Think
Re:How about listening? (Score:2)
Copyrights are not necessary for an author
Bullshit Warning! (Score:5, Interesting)
If we look at what he wants [chiariglione.org] it's clear that he has already chosen DRM to be the solution, and now we must find some way to make end users "accept" it. He talks a lot about "mapping traditional usage rights to the digital space" but the fact is that he's trying to replace court rulings on fair use with software. I wonder how well software will replace judges and jurors? (Remember, the preciousss "content" should at all times stay "protected") Someone please mandate "open" standards for playback devices!
He's sweet-talking, and politicians will really want to believe his promises - too bad that he's earning money from seeing DRM as the solution rather than the problem.
Re:Bullshit Warning! (Score:4, Interesting)
On the first page he says
"The culture of theft that turns around MP3 is detestable, and I'm very disappointed about that."
Which made me think this guy is on the wrong side of the fence using phrases like "culture of theft", but then in the second page he goes on to say
"I also see a great potential for peer-to-peer. It's a wonderful system. If it is used to distribute contents legally, it will create new business opportunities."
But by definition peer-to-peer means that the content is being hosted and distributed in a non-commercial exchange. He conveniently skips the part about why consumers would pay for the right to freely exchange data in a non-commercial exchange. So, he seems to be simply playing games in order to appear to straddle the fence.
One can only guess his intentions, but perhaps those vineyards cost money to maintain.
No bullshit, just economics (Score:3, Insightful)
who cares about MPEG anymore? (Score:1)
Soon we'll be able to broadcast audio and video freely with a system that is 100% mpeg free thanx to ogg and icecast [vorbis.com]
The MPEG Committee is all about making money, they don't care about a free digital/media world. I only trust the non profit xiph.org foundation. (and if it's DRM u want then go for this
Re:who cares about MPEG anymore? (Score:2)
So, it's nice that there are decent free beer formats out there (if I create content myself I may well use them) but I'm not going to maintain two content libraries in order to have music on the move. Nor are most people.
It would be
Re:who cares about MPEG anymore? (Score:2)
Fucking hell, you could at least try for originality... and the same with the textbook "us and them" spiel.
I've used, and will continue to use, any format I come across which has content I want to listen to in... and then transcode it for use on a cheap, disposable MP3 player. There are better formats... and hundreds of millions of functioning pieces of hardware ready to receive MP3.
If people actually cared about audio fidelity, they'd insist on media capable of higher qua
remember SDMI? (Score:2)
Re:remember SDMI? (Score:1)
If you read the interview he does address the downfall of SDMI. There is every reason to believe he has thoughts on how to avoid a similar stalemate.
three years old from Linux Journal, 2001/03 (Score:3, Interesting)
Open source in MPEG
Linux Journal, 2001/03
I wonder what he would say today.
Cheers
Re:three years old from Linux Journal, 2001/03 (Score:1)
Re:Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't I just... (Score:1)
DVD reencoding to lower bitrate MPEG-4 (or VCD.Shitty.Movie.INCREDIBLYMACHOANDLEETGROUPNAME.