Slashdot Mirror

This Japanese page has some pictures of pits from April 2004 press release. It says Pioneer has codeveloped with its group company Pioneer FA an Electron Beam Recorder (EBR). The Laser Beam Recorder (LBR) of the past used UV or deep-UV light whereas the EBR uses an electron beam. It says it will be able to deal with not only Blu-Ray disks, but also hard disks as it can deal with discrete track media and pattern domains. So what this says is first of all, a UV laser is nothing new, but on the other hand I can't access the Nikkei article so I can't tell what's going on. The link above shows two photos, a 4.7GB older format versus a 50GB newer format written by the EBR.

I've had that drive for over a year and have had positively no problems with it. I generally use nothing other than $1 DVD-Rs for writing (and it's why I didn't get DVD+R -- to get discs that cheap for +R I'd have to mail-order them).

I'm sorry to hear you've had troubles with yours.

BTW: The firmware was locked so that Pioneer wouldn't have to deal with people burning out their lasers on new 4x media.

Try some of these:

• dvdrw.com - Official DVD+RW Site
• dvdrhelp - lists some differences
• dvdplusrw.org - has some info on dvd+r plus some comparisons
• DVD FAQ
• Pioneer's Info
• DVD Forum - consortium supporting DVD and DVD-R, but not DVD+R

I just upmodded you and the previous post - I don't know who is the lamer which modded the 2 of you as redundant for saying something exactly right, for the first time in this discussion, but he clearly must have had a bad day, or he feels sooo trollish tonight.

The article IS five months old, and the previous post is also right - being a re-branded Pioneer drive, it *really* risks getting damaged if the new 4X media is inserted in a drive with the old firmware, as you can verify on pioneer's website.

Bah.

No major manufacturer except for Sony endorses memory stick.

http://www.konica.co.jp/global/press/020924_8e.htm l
http://www.konica.com/products/digital/cameras/kd4 00z_features.htm
http://www.konica.com/products/digital/cameras/kd3 10z_features.htm
http://www.samsungelectronics.com/news/digital_med ia/com_news_1042258148609_001300.html
http://www.samsungelectronics.com/news/digital_med ia/com_news_1042258779765_001300.html
http://www.samsungelectronics.com/camcorder/digita l_camcorder/b_scd590.html
http://www.samsungelectronics.com/camcorder/digita l_camcorder/g_scd87.html
http://www.brother.com/usa/fax/info/mfc5200c/mfc52 00c_ove.html
http://h30015.www3.hp.com/products/detail.php?prod num=Q3000A
http://h30015.www3.hp.com/products/detail.php?prod num=C8443A
http://h30015.www3.hp.com/products/detail.php?prod num=Q1605A
http://www.lexmark.com/US/products/overview/0,1224 ,MzM1NHwx,00.html
http://www.i-love-epson.co.jp/products/printer/ink jet/pm860pt/pm860pt1.htm
http://www.i-love-epson.co.jp/products/printer/ink jet/pm850pt/pm850pt1.htm
http://www.kenwood.com/j/products/home_audio/digit al_avino/sj_7ms/index.html
http://www.pioneer.co.jp/catalog/sys/x-sv7dv.php
http://www.pioneer.co.jp/av-sys/hd1/index.html
http://www.sun-denshi.co.jp/scc/bb/index.htm
http://www.sharp.co.jp/sc/eihon/wahp1/text/index.h tml
http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/Pioneer/CDA/CarP roducts/CarProductDetails/0,1429,21417,00.html
http://www.mitsubishielectric.co.jp/mobile/mova/d2 51is/index.html
http://www.sharp.co.jp/products/sh712m/
http://global.acer.com/products/pda/s60.htm
http://global.acer.com/products/pda/s50.htm
http://www.global.acer.com/products/pda/n20w.htm
http://www.global.acer.com/products/pda/s15.htm
http://www.clevo.com.tw/products/images/8880.pdf
http://pr.fujitsu.com/jp/news/2002/10/8-2.html
http://www.nec.co.jp/press/ja/0210/1004-30.html
http://121ware.com/product/pc/lavie/200205/pro/spe c01.pdf
http://www.alpine.co.jp/alpine/navi02/n02.html
http://www.datatec.co.jp/sr/index.html
http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/cpg_prod uct_lobbypage.asp?product=847

Shall I go on?

And yes, the memory stick format is much more expensive

I just paid $30 for 128 MB MS. Show me a better price for CF or SD/MMC.

not to mention has various confusing variations (e.g. magic gate)

You mean 2? Magic gate, non-Magic gate? Boy, that is confusing.

and is still proprietary

"Proprietary", eh? Guess what? All of the major formats are proprietary. Want to sell a CF device? You can if you ante up to the CF org. Sony has released quite a few specifications (http://www.memorystick.org/topics/eng/aboutms/for mat.html).

You might find prices on Amazon.com come close to CF or SD/MMC but I can walk into any camera shop and be offered compact flash cards by 3 or 4 manufactures where I'd be lucky if could find 2 for memory stick.

I count 6 manufacturers of Memory Stick: Lexar, SanDisk, Sony, I-O Data, Apacer Tech.

No major manufacturer except for Sony endorses memory stick.

http://www.konica.co.jp/global/press/020924_8e.htm l
http://www.konica.com/products/digital/cameras/kd4 00z_features.htm
http://www.konica.com/products/digital/cameras/kd3 10z_features.htm
http://www.samsungelectronics.com/news/digital_med ia/com_news_1042258148609_001300.html
http://www.samsungelectronics.com/news/digital_med ia/com_news_1042258779765_001300.html
http://www.samsungelectronics.com/camcorder/digita l_camcorder/b_scd590.html
http://www.samsungelectronics.com/camcorder/digita l_camcorder/g_scd87.html
http://www.brother.com/usa/fax/info/mfc5200c/mfc52 00c_ove.html
http://h30015.www3.hp.com/products/detail.php?prod num=Q3000A
http://h30015.www3.hp.com/products/detail.php?prod num=C8443A
http://h30015.www3.hp.com/products/detail.php?prod num=Q1605A
http://www.lexmark.com/US/products/overview/0,1224 ,MzM1NHwx,00.html
http://www.i-love-epson.co.jp/products/printer/ink jet/pm860pt/pm860pt1.htm
http://www.i-love-epson.co.jp/products/printer/ink jet/pm850pt/pm850pt1.htm
http://www.kenwood.com/j/products/home_audio/digit al_avino/sj_7ms/index.html
http://www.pioneer.co.jp/catalog/sys/x-sv7dv.php
http://www.pioneer.co.jp/av-sys/hd1/index.html
http://www.sun-denshi.co.jp/scc/bb/index.htm
http://www.sharp.co.jp/sc/eihon/wahp1/text/index.h tml
http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/Pioneer/CDA/CarP roducts/CarProductDetails/0,1429,21417,00.html
http://www.mitsubishielectric.co.jp/mobile/mova/d2 51is/index.html
http://www.sharp.co.jp/products/sh712m/
http://global.acer.com/products/pda/s60.htm
http://global.acer.com/products/pda/s50.htm
http://www.global.acer.com/products/pda/n20w.htm
http://www.global.acer.com/products/pda/s15.htm
http://www.clevo.com.tw/products/images/8880.pdf
http://pr.fujitsu.com/jp/news/2002/10/8-2.html
http://www.nec.co.jp/press/ja/0210/1004-30.html
http://121ware.com/product/pc/lavie/200205/pro/spe c01.pdf
http://www.alpine.co.jp/alpine/navi02/n02.html
http://www.datatec.co.jp/sr/index.html
http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/cpg_prod uct_lobbypage.asp?product=847

Shall I go on?

And yes, the memory stick format is much more expensive

I just paid $30 for 128 MB MS. Show me a better price for CF or SD/MMC.

not to mention has various confusing variations (e.g. magic gate)

You mean 2? Magic gate, non-Magic gate? Boy, that is confusing.

and is still proprietary

"Proprietary", eh? Guess what? All of the major formats are proprietary. Want to sell a CF device? You can if you ante up to the CF org. Sony has released quite a few specifications (http://www.memorystick.org/topics/eng/aboutms/for mat.html).

You might find prices on Amazon.com come close to CF or SD/MMC but I can walk into any camera shop and be offered compact flash cards by 3 or 4 manufactures where I'd be lucky if could find 2 for memory stick.

I count 6 manufacturers of Memory Stick: Lexar, SanDisk, Sony, I-O Data, Apacer Tech.

http://www.pioneer.co.jp/press/release366-j.html It's in Japanese and it looks pretty scary.

I'll say it this way... there is no consumer device in existance that will give you a DVD with CSS protections like the kind Hollywood gets to use.


Wrong. They're not cheap (and nor are the blanks), so it's hardly a "consumer-grade" unit, but there are no restrictions on purchasing or ownership, so anyone can own one.

I have a Pioneer LD-W1 laserdisc player that can switch 4 sides without having to get up. I find these days LaserDiscs are really best for getting old Criterion editions of movies they don't have the rights to anymore and getting the commentaries or extras that were produced that they won't give up. Also, you can't beat the big covers.

-aaron

It would be nice if there was a model with an integrated miniDV playback deck. You don't want to be using your camera as a playback deck and a seperate miniDV deck will have lots of the same features as the dvr-2000.

Prepare to witness the most concerted and massive engineering effort -- both social and technical -- ever undertaken by mankind: The digital equivalent of damming the ocean.

I wrote about this on Slashdot almost a year ago, in the vague hope it might become a featured article: The music and movie industies are working very hard to prevent you from using your lawfully-obtained material in any way they don't want. To that end, they have formed the Copy Protection Technical Working Group (CPTWG), which is working hand-in-hand with a ton of high-tech companies to bring pervasive copy protection measures to your PC.

I saved my original screed on the subject, and it's reproduced below, with appropriate updates. Bottom Line: Do not let them sneak this garbage past you or your friends. If you find that a product contains copy protection, don't buy it, and encourage others to do likewise.

____________________

Recent stories on Slashdot have told of the ongoing "tennis match" between digital content providers versus consumers and technically skilled people. The recent cracking of DVD's Content Scrambling System (CSS) lent ammunition to the opinion held by computing professionals and users that copy protection systems are doomed to fail. The effort has been likened to building a dam against the ocean; a foolish and useless exercise. In Slashdot discussion fora, the point has often been raised, "If you can perceive it, you can copy it. What are they going to do, encrypt the bits all the way to the speaker/electron gun?" If the Copy Protection Technical Working Group gets its way, that is precisely what's going to happen.

I received a piece of email spam today, which actually turned out to be useful (probably the only time that's ever happened anywhere). It directed me to a flat panel display industry group. Among others, one of the links pointed to the California Display Network, which had a link pointing to technical info on flat panel technology. Since I currently earn my living writing graphics card and display drivers, I clicked through to see what I could learn.

I found an entry for an overview of digital visual interfaces, provided by Silicon Image. As I reviewed the headings of the slides, one entry stopped me cold: Conten t Protection Status. Content protection? In a flat panel?? Yup: "Implementation of DVI content protection is suitable for PCs and monitors." [emphasis mine]

Thus began an evening of link clicking and Google searches to find out what this off-handed remark could mean. The slide made mention of the 'CPTWG'. This is the Copy Protection Technical Working Group, a consortium of content providers (movie companies), consumer electronics manufacturers, and players in the IT industry. This is the same group that developed CSS for DVD players.

One paragraph from the above page is particularly disturbing:

CPTWG has focused until now only on "casual piracy [sic]", characterized as what a grandmother can do in her home with her DVD. Piracy [sic] requiring even the level of expertise (and equipment) of her grandson, who might be an EE student, has been excluded from consideration. There is a growing awareness that a broader content protection effort may be necessary.

The most recent meeting of the CPTWG was yesterday, 8 December, 1999. Their meeting announcements may be found here. It costs $100 to attend. According to the site, their last meeting was on 11 April 2000. It's not clear if additional meetings have been held at regular intervals.

The attendance roster from the April meeting (RTF file) lists a very interesting, and possibly worrying, mix of organizations. A partial list of representatives included:

• MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America),
• AFMA (American Film Marketing Association),
• Sony Pictures Entertainment,
• Universal Studios,
• Warner Bros.,
• Disney,
• Paramount,
• CEMA (Consumer Electronics Manufacturers Association),
• MEI (parent company to Panasonic), makers of consumer electronics,
• Pioneer, makers of consumer electronics,
• JVC, makers of consumer electronics,
• Philips, makers of consumer electronics and VLSI components (including video encoders),
• Sony, makers of consumer electronics, computers, and displays,
• Toshiba, makers of consumer electronics, computers, flat panels, disk drives, digital cameras, copiers, and laser printers,
• NEC, makers of computers, displays, printers, and telecomm equipment,
• Hewlett Packard, makers of computers, printers, and testing/measuring equipment (oscilloscopes, logic analyzers, etc.),
• Quantum, makers of disk drives,
• IBM, makers of computers, disk drives, and bunches of other stuff,
• Compaq, makers of computers,
• Apple Computer, makers of computers,
• ATI Technologies, makers of PC graphics cards,
• Dolby Labs, creators and licensors of audio enhancement technologies,
• Intel, makers of microprocessors, motherboard controllers, and graphics and peripheral chips,
• Microsoft, software market monopolists,
• Dow Chemical (I have no idea why they're here),
• DVD-CCA, licensors of CSS, and currently in court trying to prevent the spread of DeCSS,
• A number of law firms.

If you download the roster and read closely, you'll see every major piece of your computer represented. There is no doubt that at least one part of your computer -- your CPU, your RAM, your disk drive, your graphics card, your monitor -- is manufactured by one of these companies.

If you look further still, you'll see there are no consumer advocacy groups listed.

What are they all working toward? Quite simply, to prevent you from using your lawfully obtained digital material in any way they don't want.

Here's one example of how they'll do it: If you've visited Fry's or CompUSA recently, you'll notice that full-size flat panel displays are starting to appear. Currently, most of these displays are based on the old VGA analog signals, which are converted into the digital signals needed by the panels. The Digital Display Working Group is working on a new connector and signalling standard called Digital Visual Interface (DVI) that will allow computer displays to go all-digital. You won't need a DAC on the video card; the digital signals will be fed straight through to the display. Image fidelity will be much higher, since there won't be any intervening DAC/ADC conversions. Version 1.0 of the standard has been published and is available for download (PDF format). The DVI spec currently does not stipulate copy protection measures. However, plans are in the works to incorporate it.

Intel is one of the primary contributors to this effort. On Intel's developer site, they have some papers on copy protection for IEEE 1394 (Firewire) digital streams. In two separate articles, 1394-based Digital Content Protection: an Intel Proposal, and Content Protection for IEEE 1394 Serial Buses (the latter being a Powerpoint presentation masquerading as a PDF file), Intel outlines its proposal for protecting digital content over Firewire. By using cryptographic authentication techniques, a device offering digital content will "handshake" with other devices on the bus to assure that digital data is only received by, "compliant devices." In a revised overview of the proposal, IDF Talk: Content Protection for the IEEE 1394 Bus, Intel offers concrete implementation details, including:

• DSS (Digital Signature Standard)
• Diffie-Hellman key exchange for device authentication,
• Blowfish cipher for content encryption, with a keylength of 32-128 bits,
• Digital watermarking techniques to declare "rights" (right to playback, right to copy, etc.) to the receiving device.

The full proposal (currently version 0.91), with lots of technical detail, is mirrored on CPTWG's site (the links to Intel's site don't work).

Intel's proposal also recommends that the copy protection system be field-upgradeable to thwart ongoing attacks, and that it should be possible to revoke (read: disable) a device determined to be "compromised." (The tone of the proposals is also interesting. It's previously been thought that, because of USB, Intel is hostile to IEEE 1394. Yet these proposals suggest that Intel's quite enthusiastic about 1394... Once copy protection is incorporated.)

Intel's proposal mentions only IEEE 1394. However, it also mentions that there's nothing preventing the technique being applied generally to any bi-directional link. So for all occurrences of '1394', substitute 'DVI', and you've got an idea of what to look forward to in your new digital monitor. And your new DVD player. And your new HDTV set. And your new USB speakers.

Intel goes even further in their paper, A Framework for DVD-Audio Content Protection. In it, the author suggests that DVD-Audio recorders permanently remember the IRSC (International Standard Recording Code) of every song the device is asked to copy, so that it may only be copied once, period. They go on to suggest that the recorder could have a modem built-in to authorize (read: purchase) the ability to make additional copies.

In short, through this industry consortium, Hollywood proposes to exert control over every link in the digital chain, from the digital camera, to the disk drive, to the CPU, to the graphics card, to your display. They will decide what rights you have. Even if a court decides Fair Use includes multiple copies for personal use (such as assembling a video montage), it won't matter. Your computer will still refuse to make the copies (and probably fink on you, as well).

This coordinated effort is ostensibly to combat unsanctioned copying (which the industry chronically refers to incorrectly as 'theft' and 'piracy'). However, no one has ever been able to provably quantify the value of unrealized sales due to such copying. All dollar estimates that have been published are just that: estimates, based on idealized extrapolations of what-if scenarios. Moreover, although the industry claims to "lose" billions every year, they continue to post record profits. Finally, despite the proliferation of CDR drives and the Internet, most unrealized sales are the result of organized mass counterfeiting rings, not casual copying. None of the proposed methods I've seen appear to thwart mass counterfeiting at all. So clearly there's some other reason for all this.

The thing that puzzles me most is why the computer and consumer electronics industries haven't told Hollywood to take a hike. Intel's copy protection proposals state, in bold letters, "No content protection = No Hollywood content." This belief is taken as axiomatic by all the players, and appears to be the driving force behind the entire effort. This belief is also false.

Audio on CDs are recorded as plaintext, and the music industry continues to earn rapacious profits. Even the with the advent of CDRs, no music industry executive in his right mind would suggest dropping CD sales and going strictly with cassettes and vinyl. If nothing else, the manufacturing costs for CDs are lower than those for cassettes and vinyl. Likewise, DVDs are tremendously cheaper to produce than videotapes. Videotape duplication is a labor-intensive process; DVDs can be stamped out automatically. The savings in cost-of-goods alone would more than balance against any unrealized sales from casual copying. Corporate shareholders, always mindful of the bottom line, will also demand that the studios move to the cheaper, higher-quality process, copy protected or not.

The fact is that the computer and electronics firms are in the driver's seat, and are free to dictate how the new digital formats will work. Hollywood will use whatever format becomes popular, whether it has copy protection or not. They may grumble about it, but they'll use it. The economics afford them little choice.

We are only now beginning to explore the social and ethical consequences of a Star Trek-like universe where everything can be infinitely duplcated at zero cost. We have no idea where things will end up. But now is not the time to start erecting electronic walls and imposing artificial scarcity. The ignoble and richly-deserved death of DIVX showed -- fairly unequivocally, I thought -- that consumers want to make free, fair use of their digital media, without interference from outside. I believe its death reinforces the future toward which we've been pushing for centuries: Increased abundance at reduced cost. We can only hope that the lesson of DIVX will be repeated until it is learned.

Schwab

I submitted this to Slashdot's Your Rights Online section some weeks ago, but it was rejected. I think the article is pertinent here.

Recent stories on Slashdot have told of the ongoing "tennis match" between digital content providers versus consumers and technically skilled people. The recent cracking of DVD's Content Scrambling System (CSS) lent ammunition to the opinion held by computing professionals and users that copy protection systems are doomed to fail. The effort has been likened to building a dam against the ocean; a foolish and useless exercise. In Slashdot discussion fora, the point has often been raised, "If you can perceive it, you can copy it. What are they going to do, encrypt the bits all the way to the speaker/electron gun?" If the Copy Protection Technical Working Group gets its way, that is precisely what's going to happen.

I received a piece of email spam today, which actually turned out to be useful (probably the only time that's ever happened anywhere). It directed me to a flat panel display industry group. Among others, one of the links pointed to the California Display Network, which had a link pointing to technical info on flat panel technology. Since I currently earn my living writing graphics card and display drivers, I clicked through to see what I could learn.

I found an entry for an overview of digital visual interfaces, provided by Silicon Image. As I reviewed the headings of the slides, one entry stopped me cold: Conten t Protection Status. Content protection? In a flat panel?? Yup: "Implementation of DVI content protection is suitable for PCs and monitors." [emphasis mine]

Thus began an evening of link clicking and Google searches to find out what this off-handed remark could mean. The slide made mention of the 'CPTWG'. This is the Copy Protection Technical Working Group, a consortium of content providers (movie companies), consumer electronics manufacturers, and players in the IT industry. This is the same group that developed CSS for DVD players.

One paragraph from the above page is particularly disturbing:

CPTWG has focused until now only on "casual piracy [sic]", characterized as what a grandmother can do in her home with her DVD. Piracy [sic] requiring even the level of expertise (and equipment) of her grandson, who might be an EE student, has been excluded from consideration. There is a growing awareness that a broader content protection effort may be necessary.

The most recent meeting of the CPTWG was yesterday, 8 December, 1999. Their meeting announcements may be found here. According to the December meeting announcement, the next meetings will occur on 11 January, 2000, and 9 February, 2000. It costs $100 to attend.

The attendance roster from the November meeting (PDF file, sorry) lists a very interesting, and possibly worrying, mix of organizations. A partial list of representatives included:

• MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America),
• AFMA (American Film Marketing Association),
• Sony Pictures Entertainment,
• Universal Studios,
• Warner Bros.,
• Disney,
• Paramount,
• CEMA (Consumer Electronics Manufacturers Association),
• MEI (parent company to Panasonic), makers of consumer electronics,
• Pioneer, makers of consumer electronics,
• JVC, makers of consumer electronics,
• Philips, makers of consumer electronics and VLSI components (including video encoders),
• Sony, makers of consumer electronics, computers, and displays,
• Toshiba, makers of consumer electronics, computers, flat panels, disk drives, digital cameras, copiers, and laser printers,
• NEC, makers of computers, displays, printers, and telecomm equipment,
• Hewlett Packard, makers of computers, printers, and testing/measuring equipment (oscilloscopes, logic analyzers, etc.),
• Quantum, makers of disk drives,
• IBM, makers of computers, disk drives, and bunches of other stuff,
• Compaq, makers of computers,
• Apple Computer, makers of computers,
• ATI Technologies, makers of PC graphics cards,
• Dolby Labs, creators and licensors of audio enhancement technologies,
• Intel, makers of microprocessors, motherboard controllers, and graphics and peripheral chips,
• Microsoft, software market monopolists,
• Dow Chemical (I have no idea why they're here),
• A number of law firms.

If you download the roster and read closely, you'll see every major piece of your computer represented. There is no doubt that at least one part of your computer -- your CPU, your RAM, your disk drive, your graphics card, your monitor -- is manufactured by one of these companies.

If you look further still, you'll see there are no consumer advocacy groups listed.

What are they all working toward? Quite simply, to prevent you from using your lawfully obtained digital material in any way they don't want.

Here's one example of how they'll do it: If you've visited Fry's or CompUSA recently, you'll notice that full-size flat panel displays are starting to appear. Currently, most of these displays are based on the old VGA analog signals, which are converted into the digital signals needed by the panels. The Digital Display Working Group is working on a new connector and signalling standard called Digital Visual Interface (DVI) that will allow computer displays to go all-digital. You won't need a DAC on the video card; the digital signals will be fed straight through to the display. Image fidelity will be much higher, since there won't be any intervening DAC/ADC conversions. Version 1.0 of the standard has been published and is available for download (PDF format). The DVI spec currently does not stipulate copy protection measures. However, plans are in the works to incorporate it.

Intel is one of the primary contributors to this effort. On Intel's developer site, they have some papers on copy protection for IEEE 1394 (Firewire) digital streams. In two separate articles, 1394-based Digital Content Protection: an Intel Proposal, and Content Protection for IEEE 1394 Serial Buses (the latter being a Powerpoint presentation masquerading as a PDF file), Intel outlines its proposal for protecting digital content over Firewire. By using cryptographic authentication techniques, a device offering digital content will "handshake" with other devices on the bus to assure that digital data is only received by, "compliant devices." In a revised overview of the proposal, IDF Talk: Content Protection for the IEEE 1394 Bus, Intel offers concrete implementation details, including:

• DSS (Digital Signature Standard)
• Diffie-Hellman key exchange for device authentication,
• Blowfish cipher for content encryption, with a keylength of 32-128 bits,
• Digital watermarking techniques to declare "rights" (right to playback, right to copy, etc.) to the receiving device.

The full proposal (currently version 0.91), with lots of technical detail, is mirrored on CPTWG's site (the links to Intel's site don't work).

Intel's proposal also recommends that the copy protection system be field-upgradeable to thwart ongoing attacks, and that it should be possible to revoke (read: disable) a device determined to be "compromised." (The tone of the proposals is also interesting. It's previously been thought that, because of USB, Intel is hostile to IEEE 1394. Yet these proposals suggest that Intel's quite enthusiastic about 1394... Once copy protection is incorporated.)

Intel's proposal mentions only IEEE 1394. However, it also mentions that there's nothing preventing the technique being applied generally to any bi-directional link. So for all occurrences of '1394', substitute 'DVI', and you've got an idea of what to look forward to in your new digital monitor. And your new DVD player. And your new HDTV set. And your new USB speakers.

Intel goes even further in their paper, A Framework for DVD-Audio Content Protection. In it, the author suggests that DVD-Audio recorders permanently remember the IRSC (International Standard Recording Code) of every song the device is asked to copy, so that it may only be copied once, period. They go on to suggest that the recorder could have a modem built-in to authorize (read: purchase) the ability to make additional copies.

In short, through this industry consortium, Hollywood proposes to exert control over every link in the digital chain, from the digital camera, to the disk drive, to the CPU, to the graphics card, to your display. They will decide what rights you have. Even if a court decides Fair Use includes multiple copies for personal use (such as assembling a video montage), it won't matter. Your computer will still refuse to make the copies (and probably fink on you, as well).

This coordinated effort is ostensibly to combat unsanctioned copying (which the industry chronically refers to incorrectly as 'theft' and 'piracy'). However, no one has ever been able to provably quantify the value of unrealized sales due to such copying. All dollar estimates that have been published are just that: estimates, based on idealized extrapolations of what-if scenarios. Moreover, although the industry claims to "lose" billions every year, they continue to post record profits. Finally, despite the proliferation of CDR drives and the Internet, most unrealized sales are the result of organized mass counterfeiting rings, not casual copying. None of the proposed methods I've seen appear to thwart mass counterfeiting at all. So clearly there's some other reason for all this.

The thing that puzzles me most is why the computer and consumer electronics industries haven't told Hollywood to take a hike. Intel's copy protection proposals state, in bold letters, "No content protection = No Hollywood content." This belief is taken as axiomatic by all the players, and appears to be the driving force behind the entire effort. This belief is also false.

Audio on CDs are recorded as plaintext, and the music industry continues to earn rapacious profits. Even the with the advent of CDRs, no music industry executive in his right mind would suggest dropping CD sales and going strictly with cassettes and vinyl. If nothing else, the manufacturing costs for CDs are lower than those for cassettes and vinyl. Likewise, DVDs are tremendously cheaper to produce than videotapes. Videotape duplication is a labor-intensive process; DVDs can be stamped out automatically. The savings in cost-of-goods alone would more than balance against any unrealized sales from casual copying. Corporate shareholders, always mindful of the bottom line, will also demand that the studios move to the cheaper, higher-quality process, copy protected or not.

The fact is that the computer and electronics firms are in the driver's seat, and are free to dictate how the new digital formats will work. Hollywood will use whatever format becomes popular, whether it has copy protection or not. They may grumble about it, but they'll use it. The economics afford them little choice.

We are only now beginning to explore the social and ethical consequences of a Star Trek-like universe where everything can be infinitely duplcated at zero cost. We have no idea where things will end up. But now is not the time to start erecting electronic walls and imposing artificial scarcity. The ignoble and richly-deserved death of DIVX showed -- fairly unequivocally, I thought -- that consumers want to make free, fair use of their digital media, without interference from outside. I believe its death reinforces the future toward which we've been pushing for centuries: Increased abundance at reduced cost.

Nevertheless, the CPTWG and the organizations supporting it are blindly moving forward. It may turn out it's impossible to dam the ocean, but they're gearing up to give it one hell of a try. We can only hope that the lesson of DIVX will be repeated until it is learned.

Schwab