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

MPAA must find another way

[famazza]

Just like RIAA, MPAA must find a way to be much more attractive to consumers actually buy their product and avoid them to download it from internet.

Recently RIAA lowered their prices to US$10 for a regular CD. If I'm really interested in an artist I would buy a ten-buck-cd, I would pay for audio quality, and even for graphical quality (and of course know the real music name :o) and for a nice case.

This was the first RIAA intelligent step, and I hope MPAA follows its fellow.

Re:MPAA must find another way

[Alan Partridge]

mod this guy up! this is absolutely the way for the music and film industries to minimize piracy - deliver a high quality product at a reasonable price. CD encryption is, to my mind, a total outrage - particularly in the light of LEGAL RIGHT granted to make copies for personal use - the situation in Germany is extraordinary now in that the music industry has imposed a levy on blank tapes and CDRs, and yet sees no contradiction in promoting CD encryption technologies. Incidentally, in the UK we pay more like $20 for a mainstream CD title - DVDs are often considerably cheaper than CDs here now.

Out of touch with reality

[iGawyn]

The main problem that both the RIAA and the MPAA have is that they have lost touch with reality. They are not, by any stretch of the imagination, computer literate people. Because of this, you get idiotic decisions like the Cactus CD-Rip protection, the 0.99GB per .vob limit on DVDs, CSS, any all of the rest of the things that we love to laugh at.

If they wanted to sell their products, they'd lower the prices (seriously, 10$ CDs are good, but 30$ for a DVD? Come on, a DVD isn't that expensive, and you've already raped the consumer in the theaters, so drop the price. 15$ or 20$ for a new DVD would be nice), as well as try to get intelligent people to protect their goods.

Instead of going after whoever cracked CSS, the MPAA should have approached them, asked for suggestions to improve encryption, not sue them for copyright infringement, or whatever bullshit they currently are pulling out of their asses.

Information will find a way to be free, be it ripping CDs, DVDs, or whatever. As long as you have computer-illiterate people making the decisions, we'll always have news stories to post on /. and laugh at.

Gawyn

Re:Out of touch with reality

[Lysander Luddite]

"15$ or 20$ for a new DVD would be nice"

That's what I've been paying. Except fo rmy Special Edition of Shiri which was $30, and the only version I can play on my DVD player.

I think what this is intended to do is really work for future video "broadcasts" via next-gen TV. DVDs already have copy protection. 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.

What I don't understand is why people want to share these things over the net. It'd be much more efficient to use the internet to create sharing pools and then exchange the stuff via CD-ROm or DVD.

hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

where are these 10$ cds everyone is talking about? here in nyc a cd will cost ya about 20$...well sure if you want super pop nsync britney spears marilyn manson eminem mtv cd sure that will run ya 12.99$, but want something actually worth listening to and you gotta cough up a 20. Well unless you buy one of the bootleg cds (same quality minus any copy protection, thanks organized crime) that are 5-10$.

Seconds Out, Round 2

[bfree]

MPAA's Attaway said during the panel discussion. "We think the best thing is to develop something along the lines of the Copyright Scrambling System that was worked out by various players in the marketplace."

So it looks like they want to create another weak slap-on encryption scheme that allows them to control the hardware and software capable of playing their content! The question is how can you come up with something which will remain even after an analogue broadcast? The only way I can imagine an analogue broadcast could be in any way protected is by dropping the quality so no one would bother capturing it, but I guess lot's of people wouldn't bother watching it or paying for a service (on way to get people to shift when a digital service is launched). Let's face it, as long as analogue broadcast remains the signal can be captured and recreated at will, when everyone is on digital broadcasting we will however be screwed unless we ensure that NOT ALL hardware and software respects this. At present with DVD technology we find all forms of circumvention techniques (not least of which you could copy the encrypted stream) so let's hope that the United Corps of America's power does not increase any further in their influence over far-eastern manufacturers.

Finally, some sanity

[fajoli]

This path makes far more sense than fighting with the consumer on copy protection. Watermark their files so that it would be relatively easy for law enforcement to "know" a file has been illegally copied. Are they going to raid someone's home looking for them? Probably not. But they might look through a suspected criminal's computer (with a warrant, of course) and prosecute based on what they find.

I really don't have a problem with this as it would be no different than car manufacturer's putting the VIN everywhere they can on a vehicle.

In this case, enforcement might be substantially easier than prevention.

Devil's Advocate Here

[PoiBoy]

Recording artists and movie stars command very high fees for their services. If we were to offer them significantly less, many of the most talented and popular artists would simply go into retirement. In short, no pay, no play.

Sure, the studios make large profits on hit movies and albums. However, there are also our fair share of bombs. At the end of the day, our return on investment is not significantly different from that in other industries.

We realize the consumers' desires to make personal copies, pass programming onto friends, etc. We simply cannot make a profit without sufficient copy protections to ensure that people actually buy our products.

Although there are good consumers who would abide by our copyrights if we removed all watermarking and other copy-prohibiting technologies. Both you and we know that there are always a few bad apples in the cart, and we must take preventative measures to protect our copyrighted material. Instead of directing your anger at us, why don't you join us in our efforts to track down people engaged in illegal activites?

The idea that information is free is simply not true. Without a way of paying the producers for their time and effort, the amount of material would evaporate until nearly nothing remains.

Okay, flame away :-)

Re:Devil's Advocate Here

[Genom]

LOL - this will be fun ;P

Recording artists and movie stars command very high fees for their services. If we were to offer them significantly less, many of the most talented and popular artists would simply go into retirement. In short, no pay, no play.

Geez - that wouldn't be because they get paid a hell of a lot more than they should in the first place, would it? Imagine the money that could be saved if actors got reasonable salaries, rather than multi-million dollar movie deals...

Sure...initially the quality might go down as multi-millionaire actors and actresses who have been spoiled by disgustingly huge salaries decide to start retiring - but with the money you save there, you could hire more/different actors and actresses, and have a more diverse offering.

Sure, the studios make large profits on hit movies and albums. However, there are also our fair share of bombs. At the end of the day, our return on investment is not significantly different from that in other industries.

In other words, because you can't learn from your mistakes, you want to sock it to us. Why am I not impressed by this viewpoint? Again - if you cut the obnoxious salaries, more money could be put into things like writing and development, rather than just producing special effects bombs, or stupid teen flicks.

We realize the consumers' desires to make personal copies, pass programming onto friends, etc. We simply cannot make a profit without sufficient copy protections to ensure that people actually buy our products.

Again, this is because your overhead is far, far too high to begin with. Cut the fat, and your numbers would look a hell of a lot different. Offer your products with good quality at a reasonable price, and people will buy it. Otherwise, they will find other ways. That's the way it is.

Although there are good consumers who would abide by our copyrights...

...which have been extended ad infinitum by Disney /Sonny Bono/etc... such that the "good" "consumers" never get anything back as public domain...

...if we removed all watermarking and other copy-prohibiting technologies. Both you and we know that there are always a few bad apples in the cart, and we must take preventative measures to protect our copyrighted material. Instead of directing your anger at us, why don't you join us in our efforts to track down people engaged in illegal activites?

Join us! Turn in your neighbors for their subversive activities! Be rewarded!

Look - first, stop trying to manage your own financial blunders by taking our rights away. Second, start taking a realistic look at why people are turning to alternative distribution methods. They're turning to them because you're not offering your products with good quality at reasonable prices, you're offering a mediocre product at an inflated price. Third, start taking a realistic look at your budgets, salaries, and other offerings, and see where you can make some cuts to save money, lower your overhead, and make the numbers work out.

The idea that information is free is simply not true.

Hogwash. information is, and should be free. Products, however, should have a reasonable price based on their quality. The overhead involved should be carefully managed such that it doesn't force the price up beyond reasonable levels. But information itself has been, and should always remain, free.
Without a way of paying the producers for their time and effort, the amount of material would evaporate until nearly nothing remains.

The question here is not about payment. Noone will argue that for products of sufficient quality, which have reasonable prices, people will pay. Some people will choose not to, in any case. As you said before, there are always some bad apples. Instead of taking "normal" people's rights away in order to exert control over the bad apples, simply come to grips with the fact that they exist, have always existed, and will always exist. You can't simply throw your billions of dollars at congress and expect them to go away. They won't. But - you can sway more people to the paying side if you embrace what the people want, instead of trying to take away their rights.

Okay...it's far too early to have posted something like this - flame on!

Trash the outdated business models

[Orangedog_on_crack]

Get ready for more and more of these schemes to protect copyrighted material...also be ready for a larger percentage of the market to participate in ways of circumventing it. Every time these guys raise the bar it makes the act of "getting away with it" that much more appealing to Joe-Sixpack. Hey, who doesn't want to be considered part of the tech savy croud. The dinosaurs of the record and music industry will do whatever it takes to preserve their outdated business models. Inovation outside of their control is a direct threat to the empires they have built. I'm sure there were quite a few record execs that were grabbing for their heart medication when (gasp!) they found out that people were so fed up with paying $17 for a CD with one or two good songs and another 8 tracks of crap that their "customers" were now able to take them out of the loop. If they want to survive and, yes, even become more successful, they should consider cutting prices and making more profit on volume of sales instead of higher profit margins and embracing newer, more efficient means of distribution. I mean, c'mon, cd burners are selling for well under $100. These companies could save a bloody fortune in manufacturing, packaging, logistics and transportation by using electronic distribution methods over the internet. They could sell indvidual tracks over the net, cut out at least 3 middle-men in the process, save consumers money and possibly make more money than ever. Short-sighted morons!

backward thinking

[f00zbll]

I honestly don't think the media execs don't understand what is happening or that copy-protection is difficult to impossible. It's just they don't want to change. They are fundamentally afraid of change and don't know how to handle the drastic change in the production and distribution of content. More than ever, the power to produce art be it music, video, animation, painting or multimedia is at the hands of the consumer.

Things move in cycles and the execs know it. Now that school dropped classes like music, art and other liberal arts courses, people are creating their own. There's no barrier preventing a gifted artist from distributing their work around the world without a media company making a cent. The modern metropolis created the need for distribution systems, but the internet has decreased the value of those institutions.

The core function of a media company is under attack from all sides. Look at the 405 movie made by a few guys that got world wide attention. Median execs are afraid that will become the norm and not the exception.

Re:what law am I breaking?

[hearingaid]

They're both illegal.

Under the landmark Sony v. Universal case, the U.S. Supreme Court decided not to ban VCRs because they could be used for time-shifting: i.e. watching Starsky & Hutch (or whatever people watched back in the '70s :) at a different time than whenever NBC (or whoever) decided to show it.

They decided that this was a fair use.

It's not actually stated, but it's pretty strongly implied in the decision that the now-common act of building ad-free libraries of TV shows is illegal.

And it's certain that distributing videotape copies of shows is illegal. It's a violation of copyright, not saved by fair use, even in the U.S.

Of course, people do it all the time. This is just one of the many inanities of copyright law in the modern era.

Another inanity: The U.S. is the only country in the Western world with a fair use doctrine in copyright law. That means that probably time-shifting is illegal in every other First World country. However, the movie industry knows that if they were to, say, sue to stop Brits having VCRs, they'd win the lawsuit but then the Brits would change copyright law - to make it weaker - and they don't want that.

Re:what law am I breaking?

[Enigma2175]

They're both illegal

You seem like you are informed on the subject (more informed than me), so I wonder if you could answer a question for me. What would be the legality of the following:

1. My brother who is living in a different state records a show on a channel I do not receive and sends (either on VHS tape or digitally) it to me.

2. My brother who lives in the same city (with the same TV channels) as me tapes a show I was too busy to see and drops it off at my house so I can view it later.

3. My brother who lives with me tapes a show I missed so I can watch it when I get home.

4. (2), and he watches it with me.

5. (3), and he watches it with me.

6. I tape a show with my TiVo when neither of us are home and we come home and watch it together.

It would seem 3, 4, 5 and 6 would all fall under the fair use doctrine, but are they really any different than 1 or 2?

This is my number one reason for Linux advocacy

[Mr. Neutron]

The media companies are going to figure out how to wrap video content into a streaming form with "copy protection" built into the stream. In a closed source environment, in which the API layers that translate the stream into viewable video are hidden, it will work perfectly.

But what about an open source environment? When the stream-to-video APIs are open source, it becomes trivial to stick a frame-grabber on top, instead of a media player. Instant, lossless recording of any internet video stream, whether it be "copy protected" or not.

Access-controlled streaming is going to be the standard MO in the media industry, and that means two things: one, that open source OSes are going to be left out of the content-on-demand game, and two, if Linux takes over a commanding portion of the desktop, Big Media will be inhibited from doing any sort of access-protected media streaming.

The best reason, in my mind, to use open platforms is that it keeps the entire Internet open and functional for everyone.

Soon, trivially with certified hardware and softwa

[leto]

For a few years people have been working behind the screens to make the general purpose PC a certified hardware device.

All hardware vendors are involved in the "trusted PC" initiative. From BIOS, See www.trustedpc.org

The specification has been published in december 2001.

Certified by an additional chip on your mainboard, before your BIOS even boots. It certifies BIOS, then bootblock, then OSloader, and then the OS and its applications. They really want you not to be able to see or hear content if there is even a single piece of hardware or software not certified. Let's hope it will become a failure.

Ofcourse, it is all done as a "privavy meassure" with a "privacy Certificate Agency" that will only unique mark you as anonymous entity, and which will not "store" your information after your application. Right.

Leto

I am going to make the $10,000 toothbrush

[Convergence]

I am going to make the $10,000 toothbrush. Then, when nobody buys it, I'm going to complain that I can't make money, that imported commie toothbrushes are destroying my market.

And then, I'm going to demand protection by the government to make sure that I *do* make money.

Or, I could see the writing on the wall and make cheaper toothbrushes. If I make $10 toothbrushes or $1,000,000 movies, its harder to lose your shirt.

Yeah, in the future, the $100,000,000 movie may not exist. So? Home Alone cost a couple of million dollars. There's no way India's film industry (bigger than hollywood) makes movies costing that much.

Trust the free market. They'll make money; hell, like television and the VCR, this will probably lead to more profit than ever before. (despite their origional claims to the contrary) The demand for Entertainment is insatiable, and hollywood is DAMNED good at manufacturing it by the ton-lots.

They will find a way to make money.

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

[dublin]

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A PIRATE-PROOF DIGITAL MEDIA!

As someone who works now and then on next-gen TV jobs, I can tell you that A) there IS such a thing as pirate-proof digital media (you just haven't seen anything done by people who understand crypto and security yet - but you will), and B) if such systems are embedded directly in the same silicon that has to process and display the image, it's close enough to impossible to hack to count.

Realistically, any system that requires ion-beam implanters to hack is one that will be realtively effective at deterring "piracy".