Consumer Electronics, Hollywood Work Against 'Video Napster'

cadfael writes: "The EETimes reports that "a new working group within the existing Copyright Protection Technology Working Group (CPTWG) will review a technical method for flagging video content that is not authorized for Internet transmission. ... The group was formed at the suggestion of Gary Shapiro, head of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA), in a letter sent roughly two weeks ago to Jack Valente, head of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA)." Does this make sense in the light of this article?"

Comments

They have lost the music side of it.

[javilon]

If they start making broken CDs massively, all you will trust will be mp3. And you can be sure as hell that if the music is good enough there will be good quality mp3s around.

And if they buy legislation in the USA, it will take them about 5 years to impose it worldwide.

That is far too much time to stop the tide.

It's all about the codec / software....

[dkemist]

It all comes down to the codec / software used, right? I mean, if I have a binary file that's an mpeg2 encoded video, and I ftp it somewhere else, it's the same video. You can't really do anything to the file that makes ftp say "ohhh, I shouldn't copy this."

I think the only way to enforce something like this technically is to build a check into the playing and transfer softwares. And of course, in order to make it work, it would have to be a closed spec, and would probably be licensed.

As long as "normal" software and protocols work, there's probably not going to be a compelling reason to switch to the new protected ones.

Woohoo! Still more effective actions!

[BadDoggie]

Could someone please tell me how the flag on some file will stop my buddy taping, then ripping South Park, chopping it into 15MB RARs and placing it on an FTP so that some us over in Europe who are sick of the 2-year delay and piss-poor overdubs can watch? Or how it could stop me DLing those files?

I hear you yelling. They want to flag a lot of videos that are being transmitted through file-sharing networks like Kazaa and Gnutella, right? It's gonna be tough to get some marker or flag to remain in place through the various compressions and wrappers (mpg, div-x, asf, avi, wmf, etc.).

Of course, if they do flag files, then it may b possible to use the DMCA as another method to sue the rippers, since the loss of the flag would be circumventing a "copyright protection mechanism".

Just my 0.02 [1]

woof.

About that .02 Euro: The plural of the Euro-cent is also "cent", giving you "Just my two cent". We have prices like "Fifteen Euro and twenty-seven cent". I already miss the Deutschmark (but not the Franc).

Re:Woohoo! Still more effective actions!

[Jones E. Versichoran]

This is what still baffles me. Surely someone in the content industry is just about the intelligence threshold to realize that "if I can watch it, I can copy it."

If I can display the thing on my screen, I can hook up some simple AV cables and re-record the thing to another digital format minus any copy protection. Forgive me for being obvious, but this comes up in these conversations FAR to seldom. Remember, what we're talking about here is content - even at slightly less-than-digital quality it is still the same content, and just as transmissible. Or perhaps I'm mistaken as to where the average watcher's priorities are.

Re:Woohoo! Still more effective actions!

[lynx_user_abroad]

Could someone please tell me how the flag on some file will stop [the transfer of video files over the Internet]

Let's take it in pieces...

...my buddy taping...

For as long as you (or your buddy, in this scenario) have an analog recording mechanism (like a VCR) you're okay. But the AV equipment manufacturers don't make much money unless you buy new equipment. Therefore, you will always be under pressure to but a new VCR, or a recordable DVD box, or even a TV tuner card for your PC. In each of these cases, it opens a vulnerability because you are at the whim of the equipment manufacturers. (I'm neglecting the possibility that you build all of your own equipment from scratch.) The AV equipment manufacturers are under legal and business pressure to ensure that copyrighted material remains marked that way, and is not easily copyable. One simple way to do this is to mark all material as copyrighted, and therefore non-copyable. So, you (or your buddy in this scenario) could be stopped by a failure of his current recording mechanism, or by his own desire to keep current and upgrade.

...then ripping South Park...

This presumes the ability to convert analog content into digital content, or to somehow get the original content digitally. There are many schemes which can already be used to prevent you from getting the original content digitally. We will presume that an effective application of the DMCA will cut off your access to the original digital content. And since the scenario you propose seems to indicate a tolerance of any analog adequate copy anyway (since it's coming from tape) lets's focus on this instead.
This would seem to be the place where blocking is least possible, but only if we presume that all of the equipment (computer, disk, digitizer, and software) are under your own control. But there have been initiatives to remove this control from you, even for equipment you "own", in each of these cases.
The DMCA represents a broad example of law dictating what you can (or cannot) do with your own computer in your own home. As long as you're using a non-free operating system, then you will only have the ability to digitize video content if the OS manufacturer chooses to allow that capability, and then only under the terms dictated by the manufacturer. And, regardless of size, OS manufacturers are too big of a target for content providers to ignore. Is it too much to imagine an operating system which refuses to allow certain copy operations except under the approval of a digital copyright management scheme? Microsoft doesn't think so, and they've already applied for a patent for one way to do it.

...chopping it into 15MB RARs and placing it on an FTP...

You don't own the Internet; maybe a small part within your own home, but not the whole 'end to end'. I could imagine your scenario being stopped here by any of:

a limit on your buddy's upload file size, imposed by his internet service provider.

a prohibitive surcharge to your buddy, based on upload file size.

the inability of your buddy to run an FTP service from his own equipment, based on firewalling or terms-of-service imposed by his internet service provider.

the inability of your buddy to find an FTP server run by someone else, due to a prohibitive cost, liability concerns on the part of the FTP site provider, lawsuits shutting down such a central server or their inability to run an FTP service from their own equipment for reasons detailed above.

the actions of "intelligent internet routers" which examine initiating and terminating ports, as well as content type, and choose not to pass content which is not beneficial (profitable) to their owners.

download limits, imposed by your internet service provider, which restrict what you can download, or your total download speed.

This last one is the "flag" you are referring to. It is not in AOL/Time Warner's interest to allow you to bypass their controls (and profitibility) on their content using their routers, so you can expect them to (Lessig puts it; "as corporations they are legally obligated to") take actions to prevent this type of content from being carried over their wires.

There are already software systems deployed which can "recognise" a song, even if it was performed by an unknown artist. It won't be difficult to modify this research to identify a portion of a South Park episode, no matter how bad the analog encoding was.

That leaves two obvious routes your buddy might employ (obsfucation and encryption), each with it's failings and drawbacks. Obsfucation ("we'll ROT13 the file before we upload it") only works if everyone knows the obsfucation method, and you can bet the search and identify software will learn it, too. Encryption has the same drawback, unless the key is tightly controlled, in which case knowing the key in itself becomes a liability.

Instead of patting yourself on the back, secure in the knowledge (even if you're right) that they can never stop the trading of digital content, why not ask the question why they would want to? If you didn't value South Park so much, they couldn't justify taking such actions to protect it.

Imagine that. the answer was right in front of you all along.

Consumers..

[onion2k]

When will these companies realise that until they start making money out of what consumers what to do they're always going to be in a pitched battle against so-called 'hackers'?

So people use the internet to trade music. And they might invent something to trade video without the adverts. And years done the line they'll be trading whatever comes next. Why do companies insist on trying to stop what is obviously going to happen, and start embrassing it. Instead of trying to stop people doing this why not work on creating a business model that consumers are happy with and would be willing to pay for. I'd certainly pay a bit for television sans adverts (a bit of in-show product placement would keep the advertisers happy, I just hate the breaks), and if I could get these shows over the net as and when and whereever I want them I'd pay even more.

Companies that are wholely antagonistic toward their customers are really annoying.

I must be missing something here...

[Tsar]

Suppose companies start distributing video using the CPTWG encoder (whatever they might call it) to mark it as nondistributable. What's to keep folk from sending the video output to a DV device, then reading it back and re-encoding it to whatever 'open' format they choose? This isn't the easiest way to accomplish it, I'm sure, but if media can be played, can't it be re-recorded and converted?

It seems to me that whenever the powers-that-wanna-be try to establish total control of digital media, they lose whatever control or influence they already had. Why not redirect efforts toward better fair-use policies, reasonable licensing schemes, and accept that somebody will copy your work no matter what you do?

I think the real trick will be to improve Joe Random's perception of the recording industry to the point that he feels guilty about having media he hasn't paid for. Their current tactics will never accomplish that, and in fact will tend to perpetuate the Robin Hood fantasy that Napsterites currently enjoy.

"The more you tighten your grip, Valente, the more encoding systems will slip through your fingers." -- Princess RIAA

Re:I must be missing something here...

[ishark]

Suppose companies start distributing video using the CPTWG encoder (whatever they might call it) to mark it as nondistributable. What's to keep folk from sending the video output to a DV device, then reading it back and re-encoding it to whatever 'open' format they choose? This isn't the easiest way to accomplish it, I'm sure, but if media can be played, can't it be re-recorded and converted?

The only workable solution I can see is not very workable at all. You need to watermark ALL the "copyrighted" stuff and make sure that players only play it when it's coming from "legitimate media" (CPRM anyone?). Tricks like disc regions unwritable by consumer-level recorders may work.
Now, if you rip and reencode the watermark is present, but since your copy is (of course) not on legitimate media the player will refuse to play it.

Now, this is all nice and wonderful, except for a VERY MINOR problem: i.e. nobody says that you should use the compression algorithm supported by the players. If I rip to some random video format and then use some random computer program to play it, the "certified" video player never comes into play, so no copy control is possible.

This too has solutions, of course, like embedding copy control systems into the output device (= monitor). By using a crypto handshake between all the devices, from disc reader to monitor, it can be the monitor itself which refuses to display the watermarked data. Since forging the crypto handshake can be extremely hard, you would be forced to degrade the video quality until the watermark is lost, losing the advantage of digital copies.

Now, technologically this is probably feasible and would be very hard to defeat. Flat screen producers would very much like to be able to include electronics on the screen itself, since connecting the matrix to the control electronics is a pain, and this would make the hardware virtually unbreakable. What I think the REAL problem is, is that economically the growth of the last years has been brought by the amount of free stuff circulating. I cannot prove this, but I think, for example, that the price of HD went down because of Napster/warez/broadband. By locking all the stuff down at hardware level you kill the incentive to buy new hardware, since: 1- people don't need it, 2- the new hardware is as locked down at the old, so there's no added benefit in upgrading (while graphics cards still have room for improvement, the current CPUs are already way too fast for "end-user" use, the RAM very cheap, disk space almost free, audio as good as it's needed.... and there isn't much else in the general "multimedia" PC....). Whatever company follow this strategy will basically gut itself in face of the "non-compliant" ones which provide added value in terms of less control.

You are perfectly right when you say:
It seems to me that whenever the powers-that-wanna-be try to establish total control of digital media, they lose whatever control or influence they already had. Why not redirect efforts toward better fair-use policies, reasonable licensing schemes, and accept that somebody will copy your work no matter what you do?

Video rental stores seem to live quite well, and a "global renting store" via internet downloads would probably work very well. The problem is that it would be forced to apply prices which people find reasonable, which would undercut the massive profits of the content indistry (this is why they are fighting this at full steam). To give an idea of a "reasonable price" consider the cost of storing it on HD (including classification/retrieval, etc.), of download bandwidth and (this last is a negative value) the nuisance of waiting for the download (if you already have it on your HD you don't have to wait). People now hoards warez/music for the fear that the only other way to get it will be paying lots of money (both now or in the future), but would they really fill up gigs and gigs of HD and CD if the knew that for $X ot $Y/month you can just redownload it when you need?

Overall, I think that the outcome is inevitable, my only fear is the "collateral damage" which will result while the fighting continues....

Re:I must be missing something here...

[recursiv]

I'm sick of people complaining about the loss of quality they get doing D->A conversions and the general crappiness of analog signals. Think about this: What format do the craziest audiophiles prefer for audio? Vinyl, the decades old analog technology.

Analog isn't inherently lower quality than digital. The problem with it is that you can't make a perfect copy, and successive generations of copying tend to degrade the quality, but that isn't important in the distinction between digital and analog output devices because that conversion gets made at most once by any output device. Digital signals can have just as crappy fidelity as the worst analog signal, and conversely, analog signals can be just as good as the best digital signal.

[OT - kind of] Macrovision

[DarkEdgeX]

Macrovision has always been something I think the government should deem illegal-- especially in light of DVD players and how it infringes on a consumers rights;

Example: Mary has an old RF (coax) input TV that works fine, and she has a semi-old (1990) VCR attached to it to watch movies. This VCR has a video input on the back for hooking up other devices, camcorders and so forth. Mary decides she wants to take advantage of the latest price drops in DVD players (example: Pioneer DVD player at Costco for roughly $200-250). Mary buys said DVD player, takes it home and plugs it into her VCR using A/V cables (RCA jacks). Mary proceeds to try to watch The Matrix. Lo and behold, Mary notices that instead of a superior image, she sees the image getting extremely dark, then turning bright, then dark again, repeatedly. The culprit? Macrovision.

It's bullshit that people should have to purchase a brand-new television set to watch DVD movies (and this may in fact not be possible for the person used in the example above, after all, a new TV can cost three times as much as a DVD player).

It's also interesting to note that Laser Discs, for whatever reason, didn't employ Macrovision. Another problem I have with Macrovision is that (supposedly, based upon my little understanding of the subject) introduces errors into the video (and audio?) INTENTIONALLY, errors which the human eye supposedly can't see, but which confuse video inputs on VCR's and other 'video input' devices (video capture cards in PC's, and so on).

Re:[OT - kind of] Macrovision

[patmfitz]

This is such a pain in the ass that I finally purchased an RF modulator (best pronounced in the voice of Marvin the martian: "RF modula-TOR") to lug along with my digital camera / camcorder / Playstation2, for when I visit the family on vacation. $30 from RadioShack lets me pass through A/V signals to a coax TV, without having to rely on a Macrovision-crippled VCR.

Re:[OT - kind of] Macrovision

[lunenburg]

I ran into this problem when I bought my first DVD player a couple of years back. I couldn't for the life of me figure out what was wrong. Eventually the guy at Radio Shack told me about Macrovision, and sold me an RF converter that I could use to block it.

Bastards.

Re:MPAA must find another way

[pigeon]

I would gladly pay $ 10 for a CD here in the Netherlands. Unfortunately, the recording industry mob has used the introduction of the euro to raise the CD prices one more. Many 'normal' popular CD's often cost more than $ 20. Of course, downloading and pirating music is a crime. But so is pricefixing.

If you can play it, you can copy it

[Anonymous Coward]

When is the RIAA and MPAA going to get it through their thick skulls that THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A PIRATE-PROOF DIGITAL MEDIA!

You can do whatever you want to a binary file, but the reality is that when the consumer wants to listen/watch the file (You know, guys, WHY you made it in the first place!), there has to be a translation from protected digital to unprotected digital before it is converted to analog. All I have to do to pirate is capture that stream before it goes to analog.

Their answer seems to be to force everyone to push the translation from protected digital to analog into hardware and pass laws to make it illegal to break their algorithm. This will never work. Everytime you change your protection scheme, you make all the current players obsolete - pissing off your customers.

It takes months or years to get the new algorithm distributed to consumers in the form of hardware, but is takes only days or weeks for hackers to reverse engineer it in software and start pirating.

It is a game they can not win. They need to simply make it a hassle to pirate, accept that a certain percentage of people are going to pirate no matter what they do, and focus on their legitimate customers. Accept the price that the market will bare and get on with life.

It the day of ReplayTV and Broadband, it is moronic that I can not tie into media servers of all the major studios and download any movie or tv show on demand on a Pay-Per-View basis. They technology is *ALL* there today to do it ... the studios just need to do it.

And they have to understand that once I have downloaded it ... in my mind, I own it! I am not going to pay $1.99 an episode for each episode every time I want to watch a tv show I missed. I am going to download once, "time-shift" it on my Replay TV, and if I like it, I am going to archive it to VHS, VCD, DVD, etc.

That is reality. That is your market. Sell to it and stop trying to using the government to be your Guido the Killer Pimp that throw people in jail because they dared to watch a DVD on Linux!

Re:If you can play it, you can copy it

[AgTiger]

> You can do whatever you want to a binary file, but the reality is that
> when the consumer wants to listen/watch the file (You know, guys,
> WHY you made it in the first place!),

Actually, I'm sure the MPAA and the RIAA see the actual viewing/listening to their product only as a secondary necessary concern that furthers the real reason they make the products and sell them: Revenue.

Everything that they've done with regards to innovation on the technology front the past couple of years has been to protect the content from copying, rather than focussing on what the consumer wants. This is a recipe for long term disaster where market share is concerned. First rule of business: MAKE MONEY. However, never ever forget that the first rule is very impacted by the second: SERVE YOUR CUSTOMER. Make them _want_ to come back to you. If you don't do this, you won't last.

Failure to innovate to the customer's needs will eventually be what leaves them looking around asking, "Oh no, where did our market share go? What did we do wrong?" Many of us will just look at them and shake our heads.

I keep returning in my mind to the video game copy protection conflicts in the 1980's, and how that turned out. The producers eventually got the crucial points:

1. Those who were going to copy the products rather than buy them weren't very likely to buy a manufacturer-produced copy anyway.

2. Annoyed customers don't buy more of your products - you lose future sales. In the 90's, copy protection on games has once again reared its ugly head. Electronic Arts found from me what annoying a customer does to future revenue from said customer. I purchased a copy of Electronic Arts' Dungeon Keeper 2 Best Buy, and could NOT run it on my Plextor UltraPlex CD-Rom due to the copy protection method (Safedisc/c-Dilla). After wasting a half hour on the phone to customer support to find out they knew about the problem with Plextor drives and weren't about to release a fix/patch, I finally informed them I would have to go download the crack, and play the game THAT way, and that this was a crazy way to make a customer go to play a fifty dollar game they just purchased. They actually tried to tell me I shouldn't do that. *shaking head* Now when I see an Electronic Arts logo on the box, I avoid the game, much as I might want to purchase it. Sucks that they want my money, but it sucks that they make their games unplayable on my equipment. Even if they fix the problem now, I'll probably never know and will keep avoiding their products.

3. For every way to protect media, there's a way to break it, and there are uncontrollable distribution methods to get the cracks/breaks out to people who want them.

Okay, enough of my rant. Time to go serve my own customers and make money. :-)

Re:Predictions

[alen]

If they can limit it to a very few tech minded people they've achieved their goal. You can never eradicate piracy 100%. Napster was a threat because it was availble to so many average users and no real tech knowledge was required. Just install and download all the music you want. You don't really have to eradicate piracy anyway. Just make it hard enough that 90% will never figure out how to do it and you're good to go.

Re:Predictions

[Tickenest]

Good point. I wonder, though, if enough people will become enough tech-savvy that workarounds and hacks will still become widespread enough, or if those creating the hacks will make them simple enough for most people.

Also, what about the culture that has sprung up on the internet of not wanting to pay for things (God, we're all such freeloaders)? Is that going to hurt paid-for video over the internet the way it has killed music?

Businesses WILL fail

[Alsee]

I would like to address the legislature (US, EU, and everywhere else).

The internet is the greatest developement in communication since the invention of the printing press. More people have access to more information than ever before deamt possible. The cost of distributing information to unlimited numbers of people is virtually zero.

We can embrace this new technology and it's benefits, or we can reject it, cripple it, destroy it.

The adoption of any new technology means change. Any bussiness unwilling or unable to adapt to that change will fail. The adoption of the automobile meant the doom of the buggy-whip industry.

With the adoption of new technology businesses will fail. They will make way for new businesses and new possibilities. We will all reap the rewards.

As for the other choice, that road leads to maddness. In this specific case - flagging video - for this scheme to work EVERY SINGLE ELECTRONIC DEVICE must respect this flag. This means all other devices must be made illegal - including existing devices. It must be illegal to alter devices you own. It must be illegal to create your own device. It must be illegal to attempt to understand how these technologies work. It must be illegal to explain to anyone how these technologies work.

KNOWLEDGE MUST BE MADE A CRIME.

Furthermore, such restrictions must be enforced GLOBALLY. Any nation who resists must be crushed into submission.

Such is the madness of the DMCA, EUCA, and other attempts to "protect" us from progress.

-

Re:Predictions

[gmack]

If only 10% of the people actually know how to do it then they still lose. Somone in that top 10% is bound to just write an app or instrictions.

Take script kiddies as proof of this. How many kiddies actually know how those "hack programs" work?

Re:Revenue Models

[StormyMonday]

There's no proven revenue model for content that doesn't depend on keeping unauthorised copying to a minimum.

Excuse me?

• Broadcast television. Video tapes that you make yourself are easy to copy.
• Every stereo system in the world can copy records/CDs onto tape. A computer here, BTW, looks just like a tape deck.
• Ditto FM radio.

These have all been making money for years.

"But", you say, "The quality deteriorates with these copy methods."

Franlky, consumers don't care squat about audio or video quality. This little fact is what killed Betamax and laser disks, and will soon kill HDTV.

Re:Out of touch with reality

[mwa]

The industry needs to create a system that ensures people don't rip "Buffy" before it's shown in Australia or Europe or make their own DVD of the show before the episode is out on DVD.

Wrong. The industry needs to update their distribution methods to account for a global economy. Their existing methods treat Australian and European customers like an "after-thought" market. This is a complete failure to leverage digital distribution to the content providers' advantage. Why not a global simultaneous release? Because it used to require shipping large quantities over vast distances. What these companies don't seem to realize is the digital distribution they are fighting could drive their own distribution costs down and improve geographic coverage with their "authorized" product, cutting into the market for unauthorized distribution to areas that are they artificially cut out of the supply chain.

A global release completely obviates the need for region encoding. They are using technology to force the market to adhere to their current business practices rather than using it to adapt and adress consumers evolving needs. How they think they can keep this up is beyond me...

I just don't get it...

[Cereal Box]

Okay, let me get this straight:

Movie studios took a risk a few years ago by putting money and support behind a new format (DVD -- and don't come back by asserting that there was no way the format could fail so therefore it wasn't a risk). DVD brought consumers high quality, non-degradable copies of their favorite movies in a small, convenient, and AFFORDABLE package. Why is everyone so intent on spitting in their faces? Let's take a look at some of the common reasons:

1. "If they would price DVDs reasonably, I wouldn't pirate them." $20 (or less) isn't a good enough for movies that are of excellent quality, will never degrade (theoretically), and usually come in very nice packaging? I've got news for you... just because it cost $1.00 or so to produce that DVD doesn't mean that companies are making $19.00 of profit when it's marked up to $20! These movies cost many millions of dollars to produce and market, and many fail to even break even. A lot of my favorite movies were complete box-office failures or are very obscure... I think it's very GENEROUS of movie companies to take a risk and produce thousands of copies of movies which they might lose money on just so a relatively small number of people can have high-quality copies of their favorite (obscure) movies!

2. "Sure, lots of movies bomb, but that wouldn't happen if the studios weren't making crappy movies." I've got news for you... studios aren't nearly as stupid as you may think. They've been in the business long enough to know what moviegoers want, AND THEY MAKE THE MOVIES THAT AUDIENCES WANT TO SEE! Teens love stupid teen movies, so movie companies produce them. Most people enjoy crude humor, so movie companies produce crude comedies. It's just that simple. Movie companies are only willing to take a risk on cutting-edge movies if they have a feeling that audiences will go for it, which usually doesn't happen. Maybe our society should broaden its tastes and then Hollywood will respond.

3. "Movie companies aren't willing to embrace the internet revolution and they're getting what they deserve." Okay, hotshot. You've just spent $50 million on a movie. Naturally you want to make that money back, right? How do you plan on doing that if you distribute your movie on the internet with no copy-protection whatsoever? Charge a "reasonable" price for a download of your movie (which can be viewed indefinitely)? What might be a reasonable price to you is a ludicrous price to someone else. You may think $5 to download your movie is reasonable, but there's a bunch of pirates and freeloaders who think your movie sucks far too much to be worth a whole $5. And, since you don't believe in copy-protection, it's even EASIER for said pirates to share your hard work with everyone on Morpheus. Good job. You're now bankrupt.

I think the whole pro-piracy/anti-RIAA/anti-MPAA issue boils down to this:

1. If given a choice, most people would take a movie at 90% of the quality for free over 100% quality for $20.

2. People who support pirating movies/music believe that if the tools to reproduce and redistribute movies/music are there that it is their God-given right to use them.

What you people have to realize is that movies and music ARE NOT PART OF YOUR INALIENABLE RIGHTS. Companies can charge WHATEVER THEY WANT for their products. Movies and music are LUXURIES, they are not necessities. Things would be different if the MPAA had a stranglehold on milk/bread/fruits/vegetables/etc. and started charging ridiculous prices for them -- BUT THAT ISN'T HOW IT IS. They have luxury (non-necessary) items that they spent billions of dollars on FOR YOUR ENJOYMENT -- all they ask of you is that you give them a modest amount of money to compensate their efforts. Grow up and stop trying to get a free ride.

Re:This quote sums up the solution:

[Anonymous Coward]

And when all of the recording devices have mandatory watermarks, and all of the output systems enforce them, there won't *be* any independents.

Here's a future scenario: You buy your new digital media player, and it comes with rights management and a unique key. It will only play content secured with either a commercial license, or it's private key. Now when you buy your new digital camcorder, you have to enter a key before it will record. You enter your player's key, and you can take all the boring home vacation videos you want. They'll only play in *your* specific player, but that'll be fine with most consumers. Maybe there'll be a system to allow keying to 3 or 4 devices, so you can send the clips to the grandparents also. But distribute on the net? Forget it. Not only will anyone else's player refuse to read it, but the copyright carnivores at the ISP's will detect a media file with a consumer-type key, and reject it. Oh, and no more embarassing citizen news videos ala Rodney King. A TV station won't be able to show a random home video, unless they point a camera at the screen of the video owner.

Got a garage band, and want to give away your music? You'll have to buy pro recording gear and a *commercial* license. Possibly with royalty payments to the RIAA/whoever. And maybe they just won't issue you a license - this would be quite an incentive to signing a contract with the Dev^h^h^h recording companies.

I bet this could all be done without breaking any monopoly or trade laws, too. And it wouldn't need too many more bills like DMCA/SCCCA/etc. Just cooperation between the major content producers, and the consumer electronics manufacturers.

Live music is going to make a comeback.