Slashdot Mirror
Movielink Snubs DRM-less Macs
mcwetboy writes "CNET reports that the Macintosh is being shut out of online movie services like Movielink, and connects it to the Mac's lack of digital-rights management. From the article: '[Apple VP] Schiller says Apple has not released much in the way of protective technology ... because effective techniques for securing content without interfering with the experience of consumers have not yet been invented.' A consumer-friendly attitude towards DRM may be a double-edged sword (content may not be made available for that platform), but if the content is locked out of the Mac for that reason, do I really want it anyway?" In other news, the USSR provided free bread only to the poor people.
I use http://sourceforge.net/projects/asfrecorder/ to download those nice protected microsoft media files.
OF course for how long it will still work, I have no idea.
Some technical points on Mac DRM:
m 7/ drm/offering.asp
Windows Media for MacOS only supports WM DRM v1, which only supports the older WMV7 codec, not the WMV8 MovieLink is using. Presumably they're using DRM 7.1 (7.0 was cracked). However, MovieLink will run on Windows 98, which doesn't support the Secure Audio Path, so there isn't a huge technical DRM difference here.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/w
Real's subscription service is available for MacOS X with the full functionality of Windows, so their DRM is presumably feature complete cross-platform. And I believe for Linux as well, but I haven't checked.
My video compression blog
sjobs@apple.com
He actually reads it. I've worked in Apple support, and I've seen him respond to a customer's e-mail a few times. He's the big gun, and he'll notice if his mailbox gets slashdotted with praising e-mails on this subject.
When encryption is outlawed, ?o'AZ-,++o+i++##4AoA+-/-C++bI+/.+~
You need an Audible account to purchase the tracks, but once they're on your iPod, there's really nothing stopping you from sucking it off with any one of a dozen utilities.
You forget that Clinton had a great deal to do with pushing the version of the DMCA that Valenti wanted.
There were alternatives in both House (Boucher) and Senate (Ashcroft) that would have outlawed circumvention only in cases of actual copyright infringement. I believe Boucher's bill may even have specified that the penalties for circumvention in that case would be proportional to the penalties for the type of infringement.
Valenti pronounced this unacceptable, sniffing in the press that only bills that outlawed circumvention in ALL cases would be "acceptable".
BTW, Gore introduced the bill to make SCMS copy protection mandatory on DAT recorders. He also made comments to the effect that the real solution was to change copyright law to make things easier for copy protection. Reading between the lines, it didn't sound like he had the public's rights in mind then, and once the DMCA came around, the meaning of those remarks became even more obvious.
For a more detailed explanation, take a look here:
http://www.eff.org/cafe/gross1.html
Which do you buy?
Apple's doing the right thing. If everyone jumps on the wrong technology for protecting movies, it will become entrenched no matter how bad it is. That will inhibit better technologies from taking hold. It's a classic scenario in the computer world.
On the other hand, Apple is taking a chance by not getting involved now, but I think their customers will respect them for it and appreciate it since Apple's image, at least, is more about freedom than lockin.
In order for this to be a proper analogy, it should go like this, "Well, I had it coming; I shouldn't have left all the doors and windows and the gate OPEN, and the door to the safe held shut with a 3-inch piece of masking tape." Depending on how stupid the DRM technology is, it could actually go more like this, "Well, I had it coming, I shouldn't have hung paper bags full of money on the outside of my fence, with a note saying, 'Opening these paper bags full of money is a violation of the DMCA.'"
The law doesn't expect you to have an impenetrable fortress for a house in order to receive legal protection, but it also doesn't have much respect for the opposite end of the spectrum. That's why we have legal ideas like criminal negligance and why people are expected to take "reasonable measures" to protect their property.
Now, when someone sells you something, like a DVD, it becomes your property. Except the DRM supporters want to be able to still treat it like *their* property, after you buy it, and be able to revoke ownership if the product isn't used in a way that they like. They also want to be able to do a strip-and-cavity search on every customer that enters their store to purchase their products. I imagine a grocery store that did that wouldn't last too long.