Slashdot Mirror
SightSound To Distribute Films Via Gnutella
asonthebadone writes: "The online video firm SightSound.com plans to distribute feature movie content with Gnutella. The film content will be 'protected' by Microsoft's Digital Rights Management System. The article from CNET goes on to quote various security 'experts' as stating that Gnutella is "fundamentally insecure" and that its usage would sow the "seed of one's destruction". If you're looney enough to run a file of unknown origin with a .vbs extension, that would be referred to as Darwinism." (More)
Carnage4Life writes with more details: "Sightsound has put up for grabs on the Gnutella network a dozen encrypted movie files from Miramax Films, for which SightSound has secured online distribution rights. Once people obtain the file, they are required to rent or purchase a license to view the movie. [...] If this works this could spell the beginning of the embrace of online digital distribution of movies, music and other forms of IP by the entertainment industry. Maybe then all the Napster madness will be over."
So long as it's a greater inconvenience (or a large enough moral dilemma) to crack such files for a critical mass of people, it seems like everybody could win here.
So what you are saying (and apparently the moderaters agree with you) is that all the people that have been spewing about "If they make something easy to get and affordable on the net, we'll buy it instead of steal it" is a huge load of crap? Here is something that is distributed in the "great new way" everyone wants, yet no one is willing to pay for it, because it will be cracked and available for free. Once again, it is proven that high prices don't cause piracy, piracy is justified by bitching about high prices.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
Informative: I have set up a mirror of this site as it appears to be /.ed already :(
Don't click on the link given in that statement if you're at work. I did, and it led to porn!
The reason why I ask is, I think if you take the entire population (of the world) and work out two variables, x number of people willing to spend y amount of dollars, you'll see that as y goes down, x goes up. The amount of money made by film producers (or distributors, or whatever) would be roughly x times y. Over time, however, x becomes more important. x is actually more along the lines of number of viewings rather than number of people willing to pay. But my point is, if you make y low enough such that an acceptable percentage of people are willing to pay, then they wouldn't have to worry about piracy.
Let me borrow, as an example, currency. The reason why printed currency works and why the government goes through all the anti-counterfeit stuff is because would-be counterfeiters would have to spend a lot more money than the value of the currency that they are trying to counterfeit. The government has the economy of scales on their side. They spend less than 10 cents printing each bill, but it would be much more expensive (though not impossible) for counterfeiters to produce counterfeits that can fool people. That's why counterfeit money is usually higher is denomination, because the lower denomination just wouldn't pay off. That's perhaps why the U.S. has, as it's highest denomination, the one hundred dollar bill.
Back to the encrypted movies. If they priced it so that it would not be worth anyone's time to pirate the movies, even though inevitably, a small percentage of the population will anyway, they can reduce the effects of piracy and actually make enough money (it's never enough, I suppose, and they want to get the money while they can), and the consumers will not complain about how expensive it is to watch a movie. Imagine if pay-per-view was only 10 cents? Take an average long-ish 2 hour movie, if you watched movies non-stop for a month, you'll average about $30, less than most utility bills and DSL fees. Would you do it?
A mindless ban on something typically doesn't work as well as decent education on the topic. Not that education seems to be valued very much any more anyway. I believe that if sex, even erotica, was discussed openly and sensibly from a young age then demand for pornography and prostitution would decrease dramatically. You always need to target demand, not supply.
The problem for artists is that their work is hideously undervalued. To survive they typically invest their money (and any "power" they do have) in power hungry little dictators that have no more interest in the actual art than the rest of the population. The result is the MPAA and RIAA - a marketing and legal machine with a choke-hold on popular art. It's no longer about the art, just the money.
I say, support local artists, buy stuff from independant labels, look up the word "patron". Sure, take in a mainstream movie every so often, but try to lose the false sense of need that's been implanted by immoral marketing practices. (I tell you, many of the complaints about DVD make people sound like they're hooked on drugs rather than home movies.)
In an attempt to raie my karma up from the current -15, I beseech any moderator reading this to help a down and out brother. Oh, how the tears will begone from my eye and a smile grace my face if someone would spare me some karma!
/.ed already :(
So to help you out, here are reasons why to mod me up:
Insightful: After reading this article I have a few questions. Mainly, what are the potential security ramifications to both the whitehats and blackhats? It appears as though security was not directly mentioned, so sadly I fear that the designers left this crucial part out. I would not trust my data with an insecure system, and I'm sure you wouldn't either.
Interesting: After reading this article, I see that it is very similar to what is already on the market. Do they plan on setting this product outside of currently existing technology, or embrace what already is there?
Informative: I have set up a mirror of this site as it appears to be
Funny: Can you imagine a Beowulf cluster of these?!?!?!
Underrated: Come on. I post at 0 now, hook me up. Look at these Insightful, Interesting, Informative, and Funny reasons!
Here are reasons why to NOT mod me down:
Overrated: Come on. I post at 0 now. This is not worth of -1, if at least for the novely value.
Troll: Nowhere am I suggesting this is a "FRIST PSOT D00D!" or that "Natalie Portman" is "naked and petrified."
Flambait: Nowhere am I suggesting that "Taco sux!" or "Signal11 blows!" or "linux sucks me"
Thank you for reading, now spare me some karma.
,
faeryman
What else is illegal? Suicide is. The rates are rising, but I don't know if it is "popular" by any means. Bank robbery is illegal. I just got back from robbing one myself, actually. I think that Christianity, rock music and drugs all have other draws than just being forbidden.
Now, music becomes illegal to download. Downloading music becomes popular.
Yes! Down with the establishment! I'll download music I hate! That'll show them!
Wait, no, I download music, when I do, because I like the music. The legality of it has nothing to do with it, except that it makes me LESS likely. I believe it's a deterrent. I certainly don't think it increases the chances of my downloading.
So Microsoft goes out and builds this standard. Then they say it's impossible. Then, to top it off, they make it illegal to crack it. Who shall be the first to taste the forbidden apple? Good idea! Me me me! I want to taste it!
Wait, no I don't, I don't care.
And what's with criticizing MS for developing the standard? Believe it or not (hold on to your seat here...) they're a SOFTWARE company. They make software. It's how they put food on their tables. If they didn't come up with software, they'd go out of business. (it would take a long time, but that would be the upshot) And what are they supposed to do? "Oh, here's our new encryption software... Um, it's not terribly secure." No. Of course they have to promote it as being secure.
Honestly.
So, people, which is it? Do you all really only use Napster for music you already own, or do you really agree with the spirit exhibited above? I know the above post doesn't explicitly deal with Napster, but when a post such as the above is 5, Insightful, you have to admit that a propsensity for piracy is strongly indicated.
Oh, and please don't say that the above poster is just advocating cracking the film only for the pure enjoyment of cracking it. Remember, he did say "An I would enjoy watching a film I cracked (or recieved a cracked copy of) way more than watching a film I paid for." That " or recieved a cracked copy of " says an awful lot.
OK, this is back to my general DRM (Digital Rights Management) speech.
GIVEN: The entirity of the user base will not accept a technology that restricts or degrades their experience with a medium they previously had greater rights on.
given that, let's explore the possibilities here.
Anything you can view can be copied. Remember the BetaMax suit. That's been solved by some tricks which don't noticably degrade the movie but do degrade any copies, if you don't have tech know-how or some low-grade video editing software.
Computers make copying data much easier--no degradation that can't be fixed. In a perfect, trusted computing environment where the OS, nay, the hardware, was working in concert with DRM software, the data could not be copied digitally.
Firstly, there are no such environments. Secondly, even in the perfect possible case, it doesn't solve the problem--if something can be viewed, it can be copied. Whether it involves getting a video-out from your video card and stereo from your sound card, (let's presume they're also working with DRM), or simply getting a dark, soundproofed room and setting up a video camera, it can't be stopped.
DRM in the digital world will be no better than the real world. Does the existence of VCRs manufactured for mass copying, copier machines, cameras, audio-out and -in jacks, and camcorders ruin the film/tv/music industry? no. When the dust settles, the digital world will be similar. Pirated data will be more available. Vendors will have to deal, or find better business models. Blockbuster and Xerox seem to be doing just fine on their business based off of technologies once thought to be the doom of their respective areas.
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
1) Eve can't eat the apple.
2) Adam can't eat the apple.
3) Eve can't copy the apple.
4) Adam can't tell Eve about the ATI (Apple Tree Interface).
5) Eve can't inform Adam about the ATI because of the click thru EULA (Eden User Licence Agreement).
6) Adam can't use the trademarked word apple without the expressed writen consent of god and monday night football.
7) Eve can't walk around eden with the apple in her hand without first ataining the exclusive distrubution rights from AAE (Apple Association of Eden).
8) Adam is prohibited from making apple sauce or using any other "compression algorithm" on the copyrighted apple.
9) Eve is prohibited from telling Adam about the apple sause maker because it would be contributing to the use of compression tools in order to facilitate piracy.
10) Neither Adam ore Eve are permitted to make caramel apples as that would be using encryption and obfuscation on copyrighted materials with the expressed intent of unauthorized distribution.
11) The snake can only sell the apple at a minimum advertised list price of $17.99.
___
I think the actual truth evidenced by these examples is this: You can't legislate morality. In other words, you can make something illegal and therefore (perhaps) deter people through the consequences they face. But that won't convince people it is wrong. I know it's naive but I believe that most people have a relatively well-balanced sense of morality, and they can sesne when someone else makes a law that contravenes it. They might obey such a law but they don't respect it.
In counterpoint, consider the experience with drunk driving in the USA. Although it's still a problem, the astonishing thing is, rates of DUI (for young drivers) have been falling for almost a decade. (See, for example, http://w ww.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/alcohol/promdrunk/G ENERALFACTS.HTML for data on trends.) This has happened in part due to enhanced enforcement but largely due to education and a shift in perception. I teach high school and my kids are increasingly of the opinion that drinking and driving is more than illegal ... it's stupid. No amount of laws seem to reach them, because they don't take their moral bearing from laws. Insteasd, they evaluate laws based on interactions with their moral sense.
To bring this back to slashdot ground, I think the MPAA and RIAA and all the other evil acroynms are fighting a losing battle, because their methods don't deal with the morality of the issue. By relying on technological mechanisms (backed by draconian laws), they seem to be ceding the ground over the "rightness" of copying. And because they treat all digital distribution as morally equivalent to mass-producing bootlegs, they create an essential disconnect with their consumers.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Whatever, let's assume the code uncrackable (yeah, I know no code is, just run with it for a second).
But with the frequency of incomplete files on services like Napster and Gnutella *ahem* so I heard *ahem* I believe I would go a littel crazy registiring movies and then finding out their incomplete.
I wondering what protection to this problem is being handled.
Currenting missing the ending of End of Days, or whatever, is no big deal - it was free.
How will they deal with this when I have to pay?
Malk-a-mite
Now, music becomes illegal to download. Downloading music becomes popular. As any sysadmin who has made the claim that their system is "uncrackable" will tell you, saying that something is impossible is a very good way of drawing engineers in - like moths to fire.
So Microsoft goes out and builds this standard. Then they say it's impossible. Then, to top it off, they make it illegal to crack it. Who shall be the first to taste the forbidden apple?
Maybe I'm dead wrong here, and if so just tell me =)
...well, I'll leave the problems up to you) just hack the code (hex editors are your friends!) to tell the proggy that the code is authentic no matter what.
It seems to me sending encrypted data over utilities such as Naptster etc could be a good or bad idea. Well, we all know the good so I'd like to point out some problems I see *grin*
1) Liscence creation/distribution. To ensure that the liscencing scheme is sound, I would think the best way to do it would be to have two classes of liscences. Type A would be a one-view liscence, and Type B would be a constant liscence. Each would be encrypted via a different scheme. With this, however, comes some inevitable problems. To make this work right, it would be assumed that one must be connected to the internet to check the liscence with an ever-growing online catalog (to make sure nobody has broken the scheme or is giving away their liscence code to everyone else). So....let's say you bought a one-view liscence. You're running winblows. Your machine crashes half-way thru viewing. Must you buy a new liscence? What if you get disconnected? When you dial back up and re-run the liscence their servers would say you already used your activation. Any other method besides online auth could be easily cracked.
2) How many people would downloading it not realizing they needed a liscence and jam tech support lines?
3) Why not stop spending time cracking the encryption method (which almost HAS to be stored in the viewer program and not online; else
Nothing is secure. Nothing. Sorry, but everything can be cracked. You'll spend so much time and money trying to stop it that you wonder when it just won't be worth it anymore.
God...WHEN is this whole Intelectual Property shit going to go away!?
DranoK
That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange eons even death may die.
Shh! Nobody knows I'm gay!
You just have to consider the target audience. The fact of the matter is, that just now, people who use Gnutella are almost all there to get copyrighted materials without paying for them.
I'm not judging that.
But these same people will almost always have a level of technical expertise which will enable them to get the crack as well. Sightsound should aim more at the website distribution model they have just now, which is targeted at a different audience. The Gnutella idea is just as silly as setting up an iRC fserve, or putting it on some l33t ftp.
Also, what's to stop people putting the crack (for there is no doubt in my mind that there WILL be one) on Gnutella with the same or similar filename as the movie, so users searching for the movie will get the crack in the search results at the same time? At the end of the day, I do like this endorsement of Gnutella as a legitimate distribution medium, but it's just not going to work!
--Remove SPAM from my address to mail me
In the past there have undoubtedly been thousands of /. comments: "Why don't they just use (free/paid) digital downloads as a method of distribution?"
/.ers start screaming "I can't wait to crack this protection scheme to escape having to pay for it!"
Then when someone steps up to try it, thousands of
There's your answer to "Why won't they use online distribution?"
You know those films that tonnes of people enjoy? The Matrix, etc? They cost a shitload of money to make. By cracking protection schemes, you contribute to the lack of progression in the industry from via-cinema, via-DVD, and via-videotape to online distribution. And the less viable these huge films are to produce, the fewer will be created.
(And not all of the money gets wasted on big name actors. Look at The Matrix, they avoided ultra expensive actors (I'm doubting that Keanu was paid a Tom Cruise salary...) and still spent a fortune on special effects that nearly everyone loved to bits.)
There is no doubt that online distribution is one of the pathways to the future (especially with the introduction of higher bandwidth for most users), but anyone who cracks the first steps, or urges others to do the same, is discouraging other production houses to try online distribution too.
'Thats they exact same thing a banana wrench monkey.'
this is going to fail the same way microsoft's secure music codec did. if grabbing the unencrypted output of a sound device is really the work of "hackers", then i can't wait to h4x0r the temporary file the movie streams to after decryption.
--BlueLines "The cost of living hasn't affected it's popularity." -anonymous