Reason Magazine on DRM

swankypimp writes "The new issue of Reason magazine has an article entitled "Hollywood vs. the Internet: Why Entertainment Companies Want To Hack Your Computer." The author discusses the watermarking of digital television as a springboard to Digital Rights Management on all consumer electronics and computers (as in the recently proposed Hollings bill). While light on the tech speak, it is a good summary of the political agendas behind copyright protection intended for those of us who don't constantly check the "YRO" section."

Comments

The flaw in the current stance

[alnapp]

From the final para

It may even be the case that, if they were asked, most people would be willing to trade the open, robust, relatively simple tools they now have for a more constrained digital world in which they have more content choices. But for now, nobody's asking ordinary people what they want.

Isn't this the whole problem with the stance that "hollywood" is taking? Most people will happily pay for content and the few that won't won't destroy the industry. IIRC Home taping Didn't Kill music no matter how often we were told it would.

No support for pre-DRM media formats.

[galaga79]

One thing I found very interesting reading the article, which I had not considered beforehand, was as the author pointed out.

The digital videos they shot in 1999 may be unpayable on their desktop and laptop computers.

This is better further elaborated in the following passage...

There are some problems with this scheme. If Prince-ton computer scientist Edward Felten is right, a watermark that's invisible to the audience yet easily detected by machines will be relatively easy to remove. To put it simply, if you can't see it, you won't miss it when it's gone. Which is why the components of new home entertainment systems probably would have to be designed not to play unwatermarked content. Otherwise, all you've done is develop an incentive for both inquisitive hackers and copyright "pirates" to find a way to strip out the watermarks. But if the new entertainment systems won't play content without watermarks, they won't work with old digital videos or MP3s.

Now assuming the above is true and consider the worst case scenario of this bill coming to pass. Would this mean all those legitimate MP3s I downloaded from Epitonic and the Star Wars fan films would no longer be playable on new hardware since they lacked a watermark?

If this the case how would free content continue to exist and operate in this system, as they would obviously have to use watermarks just like copyrighted works if they want to be playable on the new hardware DRM systems. Ofcourse this sort of thing would piss of consumers and even some content providers.

Re:No support for pre-DRM media formats.

[einTier]

This is the nightmare I've been dreaming of since the SSSCA was first brought to my attention.

If the DMCA is any indication, they will stretch this law as far as they can. Don't forget that one of the very things the law states is that the devices must not play unauthorized, copyrighted material. Now, in the distant future, we may have computers so powerful that they can tell what media are copyrighted by checking some huge database -- and they'll probably also know what you're licensed to see and hear (and maybe taste, touch, and smell). Thankfully, computers aren't that powerful yet. So, the only way to keep people from stripping out copyrights or preventing them from playing that illegally copied DVD is to simply disallow the viewing of any non-watermarked media.

That might be fine for a new DVD-ish player, but it won't be fine when it's your new HDTV. Since your old home movies aren't watermarked, it will see them as "pirated" material. Basically, if this law passes, all your current media will be obsolete overnight, and you'll have to go buy new, watermarked copies of all of it, all over again, if you want to use it on the latest equipment.

Free content would have to go away. Why? Because no one could play it without the watermark. And, if you can embed your watermark on your home movies, source code, machine code, etc, then it's just a simple matter to embed your watermark directly into the pirated copy that you'd like to watch. You'd just pick up a ripped copy with no watermark off usenet, and then embed your own. So, the only people watching old or new original content will be those with the foresight to keep their old equipment.

In a sick sort of way, I almost hope one of these laws passes. It'll piss a ton of Joe Sixpacks off, and I'll make a killing on ebay before they finally overturn the law.

Re:No support for pre-DRM media formats.

[aussersterne]

It's worse than than just losing your home videos... Imagine having to throw out all 300 of your CDs, all 100 of your DVDs, all 100 of your VHS tapes, your current PDA and your current operating system+PC because 1) your CDs aren't "secure" compatible, 2) your DVDs aren't "secure" compatible, 3) your VHS tapes aren't "secure" comaptible, 4) your PDA isn't "secure" compatible and 4) your favorite PC operating system, doesn't implement the proprietary "secure" system (which costs bundles to license) while your existing PC communications and storage hardware won't work with the new "Safe and Secure Signal[TM]" Internet and data streams.

SO, you spend all of the endless amounts of cash necessary to replace this entire pile of equipment and media, and then you spend it again and again every month, because now you don't own any of it in the free and clear, but you "license" it instead and must keep paying into the central license database in order to have access to any of it -- if you don't pay, you will suddenly find yourself "securely" cut off from what was, once upon a time, media and equipment you had already paid for in the free and clear.

And meanwhile, the few fat, rich men at the top get richer, watching their personal wealth go from $10bn to $30bn to $60bn to $120bn to $240bn as the "emerging markets" around the world happily donate their (very limited) cash to the same licensing system in order to participate in western pop culture on the one hand and get what was once a free flow of news and information on the other.

I think we should be free to trade our stuff

[kiwipeso]

Let's face it, file sharing only grows the market. file sharing doesn't cost entertainment companies money because people might not buy things they don't hear on the radio or see on TV.
For example, I have an ebook [13 MB PDF] of The Hobbit & Lord of The Rings. I decided to buy Lord of The Rings because I wanted to read it in the middle of a forest my friend lives in.
I then decided to see the Lord of The Rings (1) movie a few times, because I like the story and I love to see New Zealand.
I have actually spent more than I would have if I only bothered to see the movie, so this piracy issue is rubbish spread by paranoid accountants.
[please note: I live in New Zealand & have been to places where LoTR was filmed]

General Misuse of the term "Broadcasting"

[testuser58]

Movie and TV studios are worried not because of what you're doing now, but because of what you might do in the near future: grab digital content with your computer and rebroadcast it online.

I start twitching every time I see/hear someone mention the concept of "broadcasting" content on the Web -- because it implies that the Web works like high-tech radio. It doesn't work that way, and it never will.

With radio broadcasting, a station spends a fortune on:

• Spectrum rights (FCC)
• Broadcast equipment
• Content Broadcasting rights

So there's a high barrier to entry, but once you've achieved all this, you saturate the "air" for miles around with your content. It doesn't matter whether one person tunes into your content or a million people tune in. You still spend the same amount of money (you may get more in advertising if a lot of people are listening, but that's another story).

With Internet "broadcasting" a site needs to buy:

• A domain (equiv to spectrum rights)
• A fast server/server farm (broadcast equip)
• A fat pipe (because streaming music, video or trading files takes a lot of bandwidth)
• Content Broadcasting rights (hopefully)

Unlike traditional broadcasting, the cost of operation jumps for each listener tuned in. Each listener requires an ongoing dialog with the server and a big chunk of bandwidth, plus the content owners/format owners want to bill you per user (QuickTime 6 has been delayed because of this nonsense) because they know you have the numbers.

The costs of truly "broadcasting" over the Internet are prohibitive even for large companies and will never be economical for the average Joe sitting in his den, no matter how fat consumer bandwidth gets. File swapping is not broadcasting -- anyone who thinks it is has obviously never waited two hours in the server que for a download slot or tried to download a 20MB file at 0.8kbps.

DRM in Information Security Magazine

[Cally]

I just read this article in Info Sec magazine on DRM technololgy: alas the web version doesn't have the article, just list of products and vendors - the whole thing was without any discussion of the moral or ethical dimension to the issue. Yet CISSP and SANS info-sec certifications all include an "ethical dimension" to their course materials. Go figure.

the Man vs. the Men

[DragonTHC]

hasn't it dawned on anyone that the voice of the american people is being silenced. when napster had over fifty million users, was that not us simply choosing not to buy cds? Considering that congress is making it impossible for the american people to not buy a product, business ventures can't fail. What if we don't want to pay for it anymore? Can't we decide not to pay for a product. Can't we decide we don't want a product? Are our representatives representing their constituents interests? I guess Michael Eisner's needs are more important than mine.

Re:Why do these industries refuse to compete?

[gidds]

After all, they are so cheap to produce... right?

Er, no. This is exactly the point. They are cheap to reproduce, but producing the first one is an expensive process: factor in the cost of studio time, equipment, a producer and an engineer, let alone living expenses for the weeks/months it takes... all that has to come from somewhere. If it doesn't come from CD sales, then where? Not all musicians can tour or play live.

I'm not defending the huge profits of the record companies, nor their attempts to screw both `consumers' and artists out of everything they can. But what if there isn't an alternative business model for some artists?

Encryption..

[gillbates]

About a year or so ago, slashdot featured an article on the then new CSS encryption. Basically, the scheme rendered obsolete keys unusable when they were cracked. The media was encrypted with several keys, and when one was cracked, the player would use another key, and all subsequent releases would use the uncracked/new keys. This way, a hacker who cracked the keys could view only old content; once it was discovered that the key had been compromised, the industry would simply stop using that key. Gradually, as time passed, all the keys in a given DVD player would be cracked, at which point the industry would stop using those keys and the user would have to buy a new DVD player to view new movies.

What's interesting is the genius of this approach - instead of hackers ripping off the movie industry, they would then be ripping off consumers - with every key cracked, more and more DVD players would become obsolete. Hence, both the tech factions and content factions stood to benefit from this arrangement.

The really interesting thing about this arrangement is that it is practical, though of limited effectiveness, and it requires no special legislation. If all copyrighted works were protected with such an encryption scheme, piracy would truly dwindle because the content providers could simply switch keys and render all of a hacker's previous efforts worthless. What really surprises me is that the content faction hasn't caught on. Here is a scheme which would allow them to literally make movies or songs unplayable after a certain length of time (say video rental...) and profit multiple times, and they are sleeping on it!

Instead, the content faction is fighting a losing battle against the tech faction. Computers, by their very nature need to make perfect copies to function, and any specialized hardware required for copy protection could simply be co-opted by a virtual machine. What is needed is a movie/music/book format which requires a licensed piece of hardware (say, a media board) to decrypt. Thus, those users who want to enjoy MPAA or RIAA licensed content would have to purchase a media board for their PC's, where as those who don't won't have their rights to create content taken away from them. Basically, there would be two types of content: unlicensed and licensed. Licensed content would require hardware decryption, whereas unlicenced content wouldn't. This solution works for both the content faction and the tech faction, without taking rights away from the individual to use their computers as they see fit.

Re:Good article IMHO.

[Beliskner]

What we're seeing here is a dying industry clutching at straws for survival.

Same with the PC industry. With a P4 or AthlonXP on your desk, the only reason you'd want to upgrade that in future is to run Quake VI at 100FPS or whatever. Either that or every Joe sixpack will run ERP, CRM, SETI@home and a Google node on their dekstop. CPU power is so excessive nowadays that old-timers complaining about Java applets' CPU usage get flamed. But the marketing works - the only person that would need a high-end Pentium 4 DDR is for doing hyperspace jump calulations, hence the latest Intel advertisements featuring aliens. Heck Rambus could tag on the ad that,
"Rambus is optimised for data-intensive SSE2 instructions, such as our hyperspace jump calculations, latency is your friend, latency loves you and therefore DDR hates you." Marketing, marketing, marketing, Bill Gates you really did it.

Bill Gates to Intel Chairman: Everyone is flaming the Itanium, calling it Itanic, you're a dumbass
Intel Chairman: Not if Windows XP2 only runs on IA-64 buddy
Bill Gates: Ha ha! You'll have to give me half your company before I even think about it
Intel Chairman: hmmm 40%
Bill Gates: 45% going going
Intel Chairman: we have a deal
Intel Chairman thinks *sucker* I'll give him the loss-making part of my company, I'll give him Celeron. Muh ah ah ahhh.
AMD Chairman: <Krusty the Clown laugh> Bwa ha! Ha ha ha! Ha huh, huhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh </Krusty the Clown laugh>

To adapt to the new world (if without effective enforcement of SSSSSSCA or CDBTTPPPTBA) the media companies would have to,

Shock horror, create exciting new content and broadcast it worldwide first, so that if you're downloading it on DivX, you're missing it's Premiere on Sky. Might as well switch the computer off (/. - Noooooooooo my poor zombie processes is gonna die) and sit in front of the TV, watch those ads and make Disney happy.

Since after the first few broadcasts everyone has the DiVX, the cable channels won't get zip for broadcasting reruns and repeats x million times. Content will have to be fresh.

In getting fresh new content instead of broadctasing DiVX'ed reruns, we'll see more international programs, upcoming artists - all the good stuff Napster was supposed to introduce. Heck maybe even US would get BBC broadcasts, then in 50 years there will be no more Joe sixpacks, just a whole country of geeks.

In light of all this, why is the entertainment industry pushing CDBTPPABA? They're forcing us to watch pathetic old reruns again and again, forcing us to wait years before the DVD is released in only certain DVD-regions, creating the demand for DeCSS in the first place. If all content was DivX'ed on first broadcast, then reruns would have no value, only fresh content would appeal to customers - a good thing.

Pop quiz hotshot: this is an Informative, Interesting, Funny, Trolling flamebait. How do you mod? how do you mod?

For those in Florida...

[tswinzig]

I just got a response back from Senator Bill Nelson, in which he endorses the bills being put forth by Senator Hollings, such as the CBDTPA! And he's a Democrat! WTF?

So keep that in mind when voting next time...

content companies are incredibly stupid

[Ummon_i]

The problem is that most of these content companies have been living off of incredibly fat margins for way to long. As a result the company becomes incapable of modifing its business model in response to market conditions.

Take for example digital tv and a show such as "24" which is regularly on the peer networks hours after the show is aired without commercials.

Now the status quo is for the content creators to go ape shit and fight tooth and nail to keep these epsiodes off the internet to preserve the commercial value of thier property.

If these idiots had any brains they would look at the problem from another point of view. The consumers WANT this delivered via the internet medium. The trick is to deliver it WITHOUT destroying the commercial value.

When they start looking at the problem they will answer a number of questions

1) why do people download a show on the internet
- Well Probably 1 of 3 reasons. First they may not have a tv (college students), second they may have missed the episode and wish to view it at a later date. or finally they may wish to collect the epesodes for later viewing (in a series).

2) Is it easy to download shows.
- actually not. an hour show on a fast connection on a Peer network will take in excess of an 2 hours and the quality is questionable.

3) As soon as the show hits the internet will the commercials be ripped from it?
- well after reviewing the issue I think you will find that the answer is it depends. To record and compress a show is not an easy process for the technically inept and even less if they want to burn it to VCD. The reason people pull the commercials is First to save download time and second, it is a trivial process if you are already converting the file.

Now lets say I have some basic business sense. How much do you think people will pay for a commercial that is not only shown onece at one time slot but shown 100's of times in each household?

So now the question is how do I keep them downloading the program from me and keeping the commercials intact.

well lets see what we can do to make downloading the program from us attractive to the consumer.

Download time: Well I can provide a stable fast connection for consumers to download "24". rather then go through the peer networks. The trade off is that the commercials are intact

2) Quality. you can always count on our quality. there is nothing worse then waiting 2 hours for a download and it being in crap condition.

3) Format: Strangely enough We are gonna do this in open format. In addition we are going to make it VCD format so NO conversion is needed and it will neatly fit onto 1 CD (commercials and all). hell we will even give you the art work!!!

NOW do you really really think people are going to take the time to rip the commercials? Even if they did? Do you think anyone would bother going to the peer networks? In addition you can ask for peoples address (I dont have a problem with this) make money off the lists that you create. Plus commercials in the first run AND commercails
in download.

I think its time for the MPAA people to go back to business 101