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.
In other news, the USSR provided free bread only to the poor people.
What does that mean? Are the content providers the USSR? And Windows users are poor people? No, that's not right, because you still have to pay for the content.
This is more like refusing to sell bread to brown-skinned people because "everybody knows they're all criminals".
So Apple supports the idea of DRM, just not the implementation? That's just as bad if you ask me, and I also think this looks new. In the past, I've only seen Apple on the side of "no DRM" -- now it seems they would be willing to implement DRM if it were done in a way that doesn't interfere with the user experience?
Just an observation.
-- Ken Kinder ken@_nospam_kenkinder.com http://kenkinder.com/
The problem is that Microsoft is telling execs that it CAN be protected. Thus they believe it and lock out other platforms.
It doesn't matter if its true or not, Gates/Ballmer are telling them what they want to hear.
I'm sure there are plenty of "big picture" reasons why this is bad - no mac support for other stuff like encrypted CDs, etc - but I'm going to ignore those for now and continue to be narrow-minded about this, since it's Monday and you can't stop me. To me, this article is like saying "Divx not supported on macs" - it will be met with a resounding chorus of "so what?"
(No, not that Divx. The original one. Who was the jackass that thought it would be a good idea to name a codec after the Circuit City fiasco, anyway?)
What about the fact that nobody outside of the US can even SEE the site?
"I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
-Hoban Washburn
Apple is going to come under pressure from its own customers to include support for this stuff. If we want them to stay on the high road and not curb consumer's rights, we need to tell them, both in words and with our wallets when possible. The same goes for any company that takes a similar stance. It may behoove you to go to their feedback page and tell them what you think, before they become convinced that nobody cares.
Microsoft can make their DRM technology work, by using Security-by-Lawyer...
If you crack even the stupidest DRM technology, you have violated the DMCA. Therefore, there's no need to make a bulletproof DRM technology, just a stupid one with lawyers to back it up. That seems to be good enough for Hollywood.
The real question that is likely to be answered is
"Do Americans care more about the freedoms for which hundreds of thousands of their forfather's died, or the Bread and Circuses Hollywood offers?"
In truth, the question will likely become more generic when this dreck is exported to the rest of the world:
"Will people care more about the bread and Circuses America's Hollywood offers them, or the freedoms they, their parents, and their grandparents have died trying to secure for them?"
Depressingly, the former will likely fall into the "Take away any liberties you like, but don't take away my Seinfeld!" here in the states. However, with hardware made in Taiwan and GNU/Linux displacing Windows in governments (and to some degree on the street) in most of the non-American world, the answer the rest of the world gives to the question will be very intersting, and I suspect a very rude surprise to the copyright cartels of New York and Hollywood, and those software and hardware purveyors that kowtow to them.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
The story could have been writen about Linux as well. No DRM and plenty of tools for fooling around with audio and video. Bet the studios don't like us either.
This is what consumers want. Everytime business puts barriers to entertainment in front of consumers, they bypass it. People really, really like to be entertained and will go to some outlandish methods to obtain it -- Gladiators anyone?I like Apple's philosphy towards DRM, its a social issue not a technology issue. "Don't steal Music!" as it said on the sticker on my iPod.
This is no biggie for Apple. Just remember:
1) How long does it take to download a film than to drive to Blockbuster and get a DVD?
2) Would you rather watch a film on a 27" TV or a 17" Computer Monitor?
3) Apple has no DRM! You computer is free to read and write what you want! Its like Linux except it has a usable desktop environment and has great consumer apps...iMovie anyone?
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Apple needs to do whatever it takes to "get 'em while they're young."
"DOS Computers manufactured by companies such as IBM, Compaq, Tandy, and millions of others are by far the most popular, with about 70 million machines in use worldwide. Macintosh fans, on the other hand, may note that cockroaches are far more numerous than humans, and that numbers alone do not denote a higher life form." - New York Times, November 26, 1991
If I switch out my hard drive and motherboard, I'm not going to want my operating system accusing me of being a criminal. That's just a bad idea. Obviously, the intelligent people at Microsoft (if there are any) aren't the ones that make the decisions.
...just my 2 gil.
Darn... now I have to watch movies with my DVD player. Oh, the agony! (Give me a break...)
;)
But really... DRM is something I'm glad it isn't on my Mac. Restrictions like that keep me *away* from Windows and steer my preference to MacOS X and Linux/*BSD.
But doesn't "Digital Rights Management" sound nice and happy? My guess is Joe average consumer hears that and go "Ooo, my rights are being protected online! I want that!" Anyway that's what popped into my mind when I saw that option in WMP, but I know better.
~Seth
this is my sig
This story is 100% bullshit. None of the pay-for-stale_media services has ever worked out. Yet, this article touts that these services are the wave of the future...?! Its not news to call listen-per-pay the future.. its and damn lie.
So the RIAA approves a few crippled download services and the MPAA approves a few crippled download services... so what? Its been done before... failures of Biblical proportions. Why didn't they report that?
In the real world, DVD's are open media (thanks to our friend who's paying for it with his freedom)... and what's going on in the world of DVD sales?
DVD sales are making them money hand over fist.. they can't buy enough trucks to take the money to the bank fast enough.
This story is bullshit because it doesn't note that 1/2 of the protection was taken off of a DVD last year in a underreported coup.. and what happend? Hary Potter.. which was both un-Macrovisioned AND was on the P2P nets long before the theatrical release became the biggest selling DVD of all time..
from the article..."[the iMac] also has a large contingent of early adopters, who likely would be interested in trying out technologies such as video on demand. "
That is not news... that is bullshit.
note to c|net... those iMac adopters can ALREADY watch Harry Potter, you NONCES!. They bought the open media format on DVD and are already watching it! Do you have to practice to be this stupid?
the real truth will be found out in the next 5 years.. who will proseper - open media or crippled formats? The trending up of DVD sales and the trending down of CD sales... which are being more and more crippled each day. Or the new cripple-ware services....
I'm putting my money on the open media standards....
What the article also doesn't do a good enough job of it pointing out WHY Final Cut Pro, TiBooks and linux renderfarms are the darling of Hollywood.. and all content creators....
The reason is.. they are not DRM-crippled.
Damnit... it should be against the law to call your site news.com when you are nothing but Microsoft and now, DRM shills... with no actual desire to report news.
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
isn't linux drm-free as well?
But that calculus no longer works out when it only has to be done once. Look for this thing to happen if truly locked down "e-book" formats ever take hold. Only one person has to type the contents of the book keyboard-to-monitor-encrypted appliance's monitor into an unencumbered machine and share it.
Call (206) 338-5780 COLLECT for information about a genuine BA, BS, MA, MS, MBA, or Ph.D.
That doesn't mean there's enough interest. The Mac market share is under 5%. There's not often much money to be made porting to Mac, at least not relative to the amount you can make writing software for Windows.
Sad but true, it's a vicious cycle. Windows gets market share because there's a larger market (and thus more profit to be made) developing for Windows and so Windows is a more appealing platform since more software is available.
Of course, with Microsoft doing everything it can to drive consumers away these days (Palladium, FUD, etc.), Mac may have a chance. I hope so; I love my iBook.
We are the consumers, they need to flog their stuff to us. What happens if we don't _buy_ DRM tech? Right, it fizzles, just like the millions of dollars that people invested in it.
They are forgetting what a consumer really wants: A convenient way to watch their movies/listen to music. DRM will complicate things, so consumers might get burned by this once, and never buy content from an outlet that supports Digital Restrictions Manglement again.
Software DRM will be around for quite a while though, since many people will still have "old" machines laying around.
I'm going to enjoy watching this turkey fizzle.
This is a business statement. DRM can be built on top of Mac just as easily as it has been on Windows. However, Microsoft has paid to assist in DRM efforts, Apple refuses to spend a penny on it.
I wonder if the lack of poor quality MPEGs will inspire Mac OS X users to go out and create their own content? After all - if you have the tools such as iMovie, the iLink video camera, a little creativity and some time (since you're not wasting time watching movies you've already seen), it's not too hard to imagine you'd at least experiment with making a movie, is it?
No doubt when you've made your movie, you'll share it with your housemate. What about the rest of the world?
Imagine when Gnutella is full of home-made movies - we'll have an entire community based around producing, viewing and critiquing home-made movies. Maybe one day we'll have a "Videoforge" component of the OSDN network?
Perhaps I'm being a little too optimistic, but I expect that between the affordablility of production equipment, the ease of use of Apple's movie making software, and the lack of conventient alternatives, we'll see many more independent movie artists flexing their wings.
There's a difference between typing out an entire book and the few seconds/minutes it takes to copy a song/movie.
Why type a book out when you can simply scan it to disk? Copyright laws have worked well for both consumers and publishers for a very long time.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
Never mind that DRM is also about raising the cost of PARTICIPATING in the film/music industry.
A mac and an $800 audio interface (or an $800 camcorder and final cut) is equivalent to about $100000 of gear in 1990. Up that to millions in the mid 80s.
Right now, the same production facilities that studios use are falling into the hands of the masses. And, for the first time the means to distribute ones work to a widespread audience has never been easier or more apparent. Many (real) bands nowdays will actually buy their own studio setup for less than it costs to record for a few days in a professional studio. The movie production equivalent cannot be far off.
By locking down consumer machines so they can readily access only DRM media, the ball is kept in the studios court. Because you can bet that licensing DRM technology will not be cheap.
Yup.
:-)
The difference is that countries get pissed off (*cough* Australia legalizing bypassing region code restrictions, *cough* Canada and satellite TV) about this sort of stuff and turn a blind eye to bypassing.
You then have a bunch of types that would never blow time trying to bypass copy protection running out and working on doing so. Before it was just the Linux folks. Now it's the Mac folks.
I hope those DRM coders aren't making any mistakes in any of their code or design, or it's gonna get exploited to hell.
May we never see th
"Wow, you can afford to stream movies during a plane flight?" ... "Movielink is all about ONLINE distribution of movies"
Movielink is not all about streaming. In fact, from what I can tell there is no provision for streaming. You pick the movie, cough up the $5, and an hour later (with broadband) it's on your computer. You have a month to start watching it, and after you press play you have up to 24 hours to finish watching it. This is a fine way to take movies on the plane.
No, the quality isn't great and the selection is limited, but you can't beat the convenience and we all know that the next version will look better and the library of titles will grow.
As to the implementation of DRM, of course they're going to give it a shot. To allow downloads (for a fee) of the full unencrypted movie ensures that they will cripple the revenue stream. The kind of people who will be early adopters of Movielink are the same kind of people who use KaZaA(lite). Let the studios find a happy medium between functionality and security.