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 dont watch movies on my G4 anyway. If I want to watch a movie, I watch it on my TV where I can be comfortable. But I do enjoy the lack of DRM on my mac.
As Steve Jobs has pointed out is that DRM's dirty little secret is that it does not work and will always be hackable.
The answer is to make reliable, quality, fairly price downloads available. Don't assume your customers want to be criminals.
The correct quote is "Effect techniques for securing content have not yet been invented."
``if the content is locked out of the Mac for that reason, do I really want it anyway?''
Maybe not if you're an idealist. The vast majority wants the content for the content, not because it does or doesn't work on Macs.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
This whole Movielink thing suffers one point: digital video will (probably) always be either a) large, or b) low quality. Broadband has caught on to a large degree, but not as large as anyone thought it would, and certainly not enough for the huge streaming video boom that was supposed to happen. This means that while I'm not exactly sure which choice Movielink will make, either it will take 80% US users a day and a half to download a movie, or it will be so poor quality that their is no motivation not to go rent from Hollywood Video down the road. The only people who can't drive under 15 minutes to a local video rental store are almost certainly operating on 56k or less (except for those towns offering their own DSL ;-)). In either case, fine. I'll be just happy going to Mom & Pop's Video Store down the road and renting the new LOTR DVD to watch on my PowerBook.
--- What
They do not support DRM, they support the right of artists to get paid for their work. Judging by what we have seen so far Apple promotes fair use but expects people to not steal things.
This is industry propaganda - they "want" to support the Macintosh, but they "can't" due to the "limited availability of Mac software".
Or, perhaps we could re-phrase their double-speak:
"We don't like Apple's attitude. Therefore, we're going to hose their customers... not by saying that Apple is wrong, but by saying that the Mac platform is poorly supported by the software industry! Heh, that'll learn them".
Again, the customers are in the middle.... between the computer industry, which has a disdain for controlling their customers and industry self-overregulation, and the "DRM" industry, whose only purpose is to control customers.
Since Apple was technically correct in their claims, the DRM folk could only counter by kicking Apple between the legs.
Let's read this article and it's topic as it should be - a power-play by the DRM industry, against Apple's ideal of fully supporting it's customer base.
No. Apple supports the idea of not stealing or infringing copyright. However, unlike everyone else, they are not willing to pursue this goal at the expense of existing functionality and their customer's rights.
Erm, hm. That's a strange interpretation.
I think what Schiller is saying is 'Apple supports the idea that artists should get paid for their works. Apple recognizes that no one has figured out an effective way to do this yet.'
This is basically the line in the sand where we see if Apple really has balls. If content (with demand, mind you - Movielink is a bad joke) starts to appear regularly with DRM embedded, we'll see if Apple sticks to their guns. It may save them in the end if they do.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
Secondly (and much more important), the "user experience" you mention is actually synonymous with a user's fair use rights. Apple finds the idea of protecting artists' work a good one, but not at the expense of fair use rights. Apple sells the iPod. Apple sells Apple-branded Superdrives. But at the bottom of all those commercials are the words "Don't Steal Music." Apple has never taken a friendly stance toward piracy. They are friendly towards consumers, however.
concrete5: a cms made for marketing, but strong enough for geeks.
"We didn't want to go through all of the waste of creating compatiblity with a minority of users running Apple (or Linux for that matter). So, we will use this as an opportunity to forward our own issues and blame it on a lack of suitable DRM. So, we'll deflect the issue, and advance one of our own goals at the same time."
also from the article: But Mac choices for file swapping are severely limited compared to options for the PC. Two of the most popular services--Kazaa and Morpheus--do not support the Mac in their latest versions.
so the article is saying that there will be no movies for mac because there's no DRM on mac, and people could copy the movies, burn them to DVDs, upload them onto a windows machine, and put them on P2P networks??
silly hollywood.
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
DRM is only effective at keeping good, computer-confused citizens from using their computers to their full potentials.
Good IP thiefs will remain good IP thiefs indefinately.
Want to copy a DRM'd song? Wire the speaker-out to the line-in on another computer and record it as a Wav, then MP3 it. Want to copy a DRM'd video? Use a camcorder. Or better yet. Use one of those video cards that sends it to a VCR, DVD-R, or HI-8, and record the video output from the screen. Seriously, DRM will not work against pirates, and only serves to prevent legitimate users from using to their full potential.
And I spend months of my life prostituting myself working on this bunk..........
Karma: Not Particularly Funny.
Audible did it right by apple - you can buy their files from audible.com (and they're CHEAP ;), download 'em to your Mac and (get this): play them anywhere! You can play 'em on an iPod (or other MP3 player), play 'em on your mac or even burn 'em to CDs. You can make backups. You can transfer to different media. It's a proprietary audio format, sure, but one so transparent that the only thing it prevents you from doing is filesharing it. I mean, you can, but it won't work without your login and password. It seems like the perfect system to me: You wouldn't think of sharing it because it won't work anyway, but what's the point when what you want is cheap, easy to get and freely portable?
DRM can work for all concerned, in a way that doesn't violate anyone's rights and stil pays the artists. Why hasn't anyone else tried this?
Triv
Please stop mindlessly repeating the PR party line of movie studios. This isn't about artists, this is about the profits of big corporations.
Judging by what we have seen so far Apple promotes fair use but expects people to not steal things.
What about consumer rights? If I pay for a piece of copyrighted content, I have a right to fair use of that content. DRM keeps me from that.
This is all rather besides the point. Even if Apple doesn't provide system-level DRM, application-level DRM works just fine in the formats MovieLink is using (RealMedia and Windows Media). And Windows, while they talk about system-level DRM eventually with Palladium, doesn't have it either today.
So, whatever MovieLink might claim is their reason, they aren't technical. They probably don't want to do it for marketshare reasons, and are using Apple's DRM statements (which are really rather mild) as an excuse/flogging horse.
My video compression blog
So, of course, it wasn't mp3, or mpeg, or realaudio. It was the Liquid Audio format...
I downloaded and installed the player, which runs under classic a-ok, until you actually try to play the files. Upon searching, it is explicitly incompatible with MacOS X, as are the RealPlayer plugins to listen to the files as well. There are no alternative players. In reading a bit more, I also found that Microsoft bought all of the intellectual property rights from the creators of Liquid Audio in September, so now the task of writing a player for MacOS X falls into their lap...
Fair use rights...? What are those? I paid money for this song, and can't listen to it. In speaking to cdnow's customer service, they informed me that I needed to get the proper player for my operating system. This was in reply to my saying "There isn't a player for OS X."
So, Mac users, linux users, BSD users, and the rest of the gang unfortunately get it up the poop chute when it comes to DRM-based media. I paid for a song and couldn't listen to it, as the DRM won't let me! I'd be more bitter about my lack-of-refund if I didn't get the song 10 minutes afterwards from my local friendly P2P clients... at a much higher bitrate, too... If getting things LEGALLY were as easy as getting them pirated, maybe people wouldn't be stealing so much music, eh?
-agent oranje.
Now, if you buy something and agree to a supplemental limitation of rights, than you in fact have no non-explicit rights (ie, not defined in the contract). [...] You buy DRM'd content and you agree in fact to waive your fair use, first sale, and other consumer rights. Its basic contract law.
It's not supposed to work like that for copyrights, and for good reason: publishers would collude to eliminate fair use if they could. For books, we warded off that threat, but for on-line movies, it is happening.
More generally, you cannot waive arbitrary rights in contracts; many rights are guaranteed to you no matter what the contract says. Fair use has traditionally been such a right, and it should continue to be for digital media.
If DRM bugs you though, the obvious answer is not to buy into it.
That's a free market argument. The problem is that there is no free, competitive market in movies. I don't have a wide choice of sellers for equivalent products and I can't negotiate conditions with individual sellers. It's a take-it-or-leave-it proposition.
You can justify any monopoly with your kinds of libertarian platitudes. But the fact is that if we want a free market, we need to regulate things like copyright and fair use carefully.