Slashdot Mirror


Hollywood's DRM Agenda Moving Forward

risingphoenix writes "The New York Times has a story about the progress Hollywood has made putting Digtal Rights Management in the marketplace. The story focuses on what technology is currently in place; what the next moves, technically and legally, are for the industry and how consumers are being affected by Hollywoods power grab."

19 of 288 comments (clear)

  1. Speed bumps by John+Jorsett · · Score: 5, Funny

    "We need to put in speed bumps to keep people honest," said Jack Valenti

    Personally, I think Jack Valenti needs a few speed bumps on his head to knock some sense into him.

    1. Re:Speed bumps by Zeinfeld · · Score: 5, Insightful
      The problem with the MPAA is that they can't understand that maximizing revenue is not consistent with making your customers the enemy.

      The biggest problem with all these DRM schemes is that the restrictions are pointlessly complex so the consumer can't understand them. The other closely connected problem is not telling the customer about them.

      It will be interesting to see whether stopping people from recording pay per view increases viewership or as I expect causes people not to pay the already exhorbitant fees.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
  2. Eat This HollyWood- DeCSS Descrambler Below by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    #!/usr/bin/perl -w
    # 531-byte qrpff-fast, Keith Winstein and Marc Horowitz
    # MPEG 2 PS VOB file on stdin -> descrambled output on stdout
    # arguments: title key bytes in least to most-significant order
    $_='while(read+STDIN,$_,2048){$a=29;$b=73;$ c=142;$ t=255;@t=map{$_%16or$t^=$c^=(
    $m=(11,10,116,100,1 1,122,20,100)[$_/16%8])$t^=(72, @z=(64,72,$a^=12*($_%16
    -2?0:$m&17)),$b^=$_%64?12 :0,@z)[$_%8]}(16..271);if ((@a=unx"C*",$_)[20]&48){$h
    =5;$_=unxb24,join"",@ b=map{xB8,unxb8,chr($_^$a[--$ h+84])}@ARGV;s/...$/1$&/;$
    d=unxV,xb25,$_;$e=256| (ord$b[4])>8^($f=$t&($d>>12^ $d>>4^
    $d^$d/8))>8^($t&($g=($q=$e>>14&7^$e)^$q*8^ $q>=8)+= $f+(~$g&$t))for@a[128..$#a]}print+x"C*",@a}';s/x/p ack+/g;eval

    From A Cave Somewhere In Amerika,

    W00t

  3. Sorta OT... by handsomepete · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Is it possible that the MPAA is intentionally pushing the home theater as the Theater of the Future(tm)? Just like the extinction of arcades has begun due to home entertainment catching up, will the movie theaters also start to thin because the experience will be just as good at home? The line in the article (un: payyourauthors pw: abouttime):

    "The digital future, hailed as more convenient and of higher quality than the scratchy, fuzzy analog past, is coming with multiple strings attached"
    made me wonder what they're actually offering us in exchange for what's being taken away - that is basically, easy to tape television and easy to copy movies. Is the picture going to get much better on DVDs? Will large, widescreen/wall TVs get cheaper? Will there a be a point where first run movies are released simultaneously in theaters and Best Buy? Or submitted directly to our homes via a set top box for 7 bucks (for each person in the room, of course)? Will Jack Valenti live to be an unholy 300 years old? Just thinking.
  4. It does not matter what they do by evilmonkey_666 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've said it before and I'll say it again: If I can watch it, I can capture it and digitize it. After that I can encode it any way I want.

    They cannot escape from this undeniable truth. Real mass piracy will never go away for this reason. This DRM technology only serves to take away consumers fair use and increases corporations control.

    Either way, this won't ever become mainstream. People will demand the rights to use their media any way they want to. That means being able to make and burn mp3s for portable players in their car etc. As soon as people figure this out the hardware simply won't sell.

    Why else do you think macrovision disabled region free DVD players out sell normal players?

    --


    - PS. This is what part of the alphabet would look like if Q and R where eliminated.
  5. Write Amy Harmon (author of story) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting
    The article is completely written from the view of the hollywood studios, riaa, etc. There is no mention for half the article of any consumer opposition and only at the end of the article, which hardly anyone reads, is there an extended discussion of the infringement of fair use. Perhaps the author needs to hear from the /. community regarding their strong opposition to the hollywood policies that infringe fair use.

    The only address I could find is letters@nytimes.com which will be directed to the letters editor (duh) but perhaps one could try amy.harmon@nytimes.com or a.harmon@nytimes.com or some other variation.


    If anyone *does* find her direct address, pls post.

  6. How they'll screw the public by jvmatthe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's easy to see what they're trying. They're going to come up with a draconian, unworkable model that everyone hates. Then they back off to something that we (that being the technically savvy users) still find offensive but that the normal schmoe thinks is a good deal.

    After the media companies spin it into Hollywood backing off because they're good Americans and want people to have the right to watch TV (just like it says in the Constitution) the average guy is going to say "Hey, this is a reasonable tradeoff to get The Sopranos in high definition goodness! I sure am glad they didn't stick with that first plan. It would have been awful! Sure, I can't record it, but that would be piracy!"

    Time and again, the informed people screwed by the ignorant ones. Same story here.

    1. Re:How they'll screw the public by jvmatthe · · Score: 5, Insightful
      However it will only work if people are stupid.

      Ergo, it will work.

      Sorry, feeling a little cynical this morning. :^)
  7. Alternatives? by MacAndrew · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hollywood and the music labels DO have a piracy problem and it IS growing. Napster, CD burners, and the like simply didn't exist a few years ago. Moreover, we're going in circles, this same essential battle has been fought before, over cassette tapes andf DAT (remember that? :) and the VCR. It's just a question of degree.

    My question is that if you object to DRM because of the way its is done, what should be done? Please don't say "lower prices" because that's just a rationalization that they're somehow forcing pirates to do it. A boycott is a well-proven means of protext.

    If you're against intellectual property in general, just skip this, because the industry is never going to work for free, nor accept your suggestion, nor IMHO should they. Folks who create intangibles are as entitled to compensation as people who build bridges.

    In an age when it is orders of magnitude easier to copy, what should the rights holders do to protect their work? Think positive! Frankly, I don't know.

    1. Re:Alternatives? by Col.+Klink+(retired) · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not *my* problem that their business model is destined to fail.

      How could we have saved the buggy whip manufacturers? There was only one way: outlaw the horseless carriage. How could the Monks have kept a monopoly on books? Outlaw the printing press.

      How can Hollywood continue to maintain their current rate of return? Abolish the personal computer.

      --

      -- Don't Tase me, bro!

    2. Re:Alternatives? by iiioxx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Please don't say "lower prices" because that's just a rationalization that they're somehow forcing pirates to do it.

      It's not the price, it's the VALUE. People buy the good stuff, and pirate the crap. Why? Because it's all priced the same.

      Despite the ready availability of pirated media content, people are STILL buying CDs and DVDs (and sales are continuing to grow). I think the difference is in what they are buying. People buy movies like Lord of the Rings and CDs by talented artists. People pirate copies of movies like Ballistic: Ecks vs Sever and songs by the latest bubblegum fad boy band.

      The reason is simple: they might get some short-lived enjoyment out of watching or listening to the crap a few times, but they know they will quickly get tired of it, because it really isn't all that good.

      DVDs and CDs present value when they have good re-play ability. After all, they are an INVESTMENT. Add up the cost of your music and movie collection at $10 a videotape, $15 a CD, and $20 a DVD. Even just ballparking it, mine's up around $8,000. I would bet there are real mediaphiles out there with collections in excess of $20,000.

      If the media industry wants to stamp out piracy, they do need to lower prices... on the CRAP. If $20 is the price for a premium quality movie on DVD, than they should be charging $10 for a crap movie on DVD (and trust me, they know which are good and which are just crap). A crap movie might not be worth $20, but it might present a value at $5 or $10, and people would rather simply drive down to Best Buy and pick it up, rather than spending two days on WinMX trying to download it.

    3. Re:Alternatives? by Reziac · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't really give a damn what they do with THEIR material. If they want to encrypt and timebomb and copy-prevent and whatever else, fine, I don't care -- *so long as it only affects their own product as sold*, and nothing else. If they want to reduce their value to where it's not worth buying, that's their problem.

      But they are *trying* to make it MY problem.

      What pisses me off is that they want to stick *their* claws into MY computer in the process -- that they want DRM to be in the hardware, in the OS, in the applications I might use to create or distribute my own original content.

      What if your word processor didn't allow you to paste citations or quotes unless you had purchased a key for the original work? What if the quote then deleted itself from your article after 24 hours? What if you needed to buy a DRM key for each original article you write and claim copyright for? Oh, you don't think that can happen? Tell me, what is the difference between original music and original writing?? As I see it, it's just a matter of degree, so I present this example to point out the absurdity that's being pushed on us in the name of big-media DRM.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    4. Re:Alternatives? by ewhac · · Score: 5, Interesting

      In an age when it is orders of magnitude easier to copy, what should the rights holders do to protect their work? Think positive! Frankly, I don't know.

      Congratulations. Unlike the greedy little so-and-sos in Hollywood, you are thinking clearly, and have identified the core problem. However, to get to the beginnings of a solution, you need to throw out a few more assumptions.

      Consider the reality of computers and digital media. Computers are machines that, among other things, make perfect copies of digital information. Indeed, computers as we understand them would not be able to function without this ability. Because of this, every computer is like a completely independent factory, fully capable of churning out artifacts identical in quality and characteristics to that of a "manufacturer." Thus, everyone who owns a computer possesses their very own fully-operational factory, which may be turned to whatever purpose its owner wishes. The distinction between a "user" and a "manufacturer", therefore, ceases to exist; all users are likewise manufacturers.

      These characteristics have always been true of computers, nor have they ever been secret. Now, given this cold, hard reality, what kind of cretin would create a business model fundamentally based on their company being the sole source of manufactured artifacts, given that all their "customers" are also manufacturers?

      It's a mug's game from the word, "Go," and anyone who tells you different has designs on your wallet.

      The "solutions" proposed by Hollywood attempt, from a technological point of view, to establish themselves as a sole source -- the only operating factory. To do so, they would need to eliminate all the other factories that aren't theirs, and they propose to do this through Digital Restrictions Mechanisms, eliminating their customers manufacturing capabilities. But to eliminate that capability would be to destroy computers as we know them today. This is why computer scientists and professionals have been laughing in Hollywood's face every time they've raised this issue:

      Computers and digital media -- by definition -- come with manufacturing (copying) abilities. You can't eliminate copying without destroying the very computer you're trying to harness.

      (Hollywood seems to think that Silicon Valley's inastringency on this issue is born out of politics or petty personality conflicts (since that's the sort of game Hollywood plays all the time). It's not. What they want was proved impossible by Turing decades ago, but they don't get that. It's difficult to explain to someone illiterate in math that 2 + 2 does not and never can equal 5. "Just change the value of 2," they say. Well, then it wouldn't be 2 anymore, would it? ...I digress)

      So. If we accept that eliminating all the competing factories out there is Just Not Going To Happen -- that you can never realistically be the sole source of any artifact -- what can you control? What scarce resources do you still control that can't (easily) be taken from you or diluted?

      I don't have a complete answer yet. ("WHAT!? I read that whole rant for nothing!?") However, I am firmly convinced that a lasting, workable solution will be founded on giving you control of your time and your reputation. The core idea is that you will build a reputation for yourself -- say, by releasing little code trinkets on the net -- that will draw people to you seeking your expertise. Once done, you charge them for your time, which is still a scarce resource that can't be copied by computers.

      The reason I feel this will be important is because I foresee that, one day, physical objects will become as easy to duplicate as digital objects. When that day comes, if we haven't worked out a new socio-economic model that acknowledges and permits free copying to exist, we are fscked. Think Global Civil War-level fscked. You think BMW's just going to let you make copies of their cars? Dream on, loser. It's not gonna happen -- unless they've been slowly weaned into the idea through the socio-economic model built around computers and digital media.

      I do not have the Jeffersonian measure of wisdom required to design this new framework entirely on my own, which is why I encourage further discussion on the issue. But the bottom line is, computers have changed the rules. There is now a factory in every home, and scarcity is now a completely artificial construct. Every day we refuse to acknowledge this is another day that we've needlessly screwed ourselves.

      Schwab

  8. Will Your TV Become a Spy? by Alien54 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Business Week also has this article entitled Will Your TV Become a Spy?" this is very much anti the antics of the Hollywood crowd.

    While the economy and stock markets struggled, 2002 was a golden year for the silver screen. Thanks to blockbuster hits such as Spider-Man, Harry Potter, and Lord of the Rings, ticket sales hit $9.3 billion worldwide, a remarkable 13% rise over 2001's then-record receipts. So much for claims that piracy threatens Hollywood's livelihood.

    decently done article, not toooooo long

    --
    "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
  9. Imagine the video store of the future... by zubernerd · · Score: 5, Funny

    (if they're still around)
    becuase they are licensing a product, to quote the story: "Instead of a product, consumers will essentially purchase licenses to use digital movies or music under certain circumstances"

    A man brings up a copy of Ghostbusters VII (remember Hollywood hates taking risk, so they began to just make sequals to ancient hits) and begins to check it out.
    The guy at the checkout counter asks "How many people will be viewing this?"
    The man answers "None of you business"
    "Well, sir, we need to know that so we can charge you a per person viewing license"
    "What the fu**?
    "Well, sir, remember, everytime a unlicensed viewer views a copy, they are viewing it with bin laden."

    --if you don't find it funny, don't waste your points modding me down. Use your mod points to promote world peace, or something...

    --
    Accentuate the positive, don't waste your mod points on the negative.
  10. I hope it works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I hope Hollywood locks down everything it produces, tight. Uncopyable, pay-per-view, the whole bit.

    Why? Because digital video production is getting pretty cheap these days. Music production is even cheaper. The more Hollywood cracks down, the more opportunities there will be for grassroots art produced for love instead of money, or for tipping and Street Performer systems.

    If Hollywood wants to abandon the most effective marketing system ever invented, I say let them!

  11. Scary quote from the end of the article by Lumpish+Scholar · · Score: 5, Insightful
    "We're not locked into these rules ... We're just testing them out."
    Translation: "We're just seeing how we can push consumers before they start pushing back ... and whether we have enough power so they can't really push back."
    --
    Stupid job ads, weird spam, occasional insight at
  12. uhh, no you should demand more. by twitter · · Score: 5, Insightful
    You and the New York Times are missing the bigger picture. You say that we should stop watching TV and movies if we don't like what we see. Great, I doubt anyone would object to that. I don't pay for cable TV and I rarely watch broadcast. I'll miss broadcast TV when the feds turn it into some kind of ecrypted nightmare, but not much more than I miss it now. Right now I miss it a whole lot. What I'm talking about is the fact that there are millions of people making content that I will never be aware of. The larger problem is that DRM is being used to conqure the digital world and perpetuate the artificial scarcity of recorded music and films that 100 year old technology created.

    That evil box sitting on your TV and "media consolidation" are the keys to making every place as unserved by culture as North West Alaska in 1910. Media consolidation assures the current broadcasters that no on else will be able to provide content. MP3.com will die sooner or later under it's lawsuit loads, and all the others that would do likewise know better than to throw good money after bad. That evil box on your TV will makes sure no one else can create content that your TV will play. An equivalent box in the local movie theater already prescribes what content will apear on the screen and when - without a physical copy ever entering the building. Wanna try to get your movie distributed in a theater like that? Good luck trying to own the satilite, and escaping the FBI if you try. The theater owner can't help you even if they wanted to.

    The only solution is to create a peer maintained independent wireless network. All the wires are owned by people who think they can screw you all day long.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  13. Thanks for managing my rights for me. by DumbSwede · · Score: 5, Insightful
    "That's what digital rights management does: it enables business models."
    Of course these business models can be as irritating, restrictive, and coercive as all get out.

    I can't help but notice that the entertainment industry (including sports), is all about getting more and more money for giving you essentially the same thing. Commodities of all other types become cheaper to purchase, higher in quality, and packed with more functionality. The reason the entertainment industry gets away with this outrageous behavior (other than their huge lobbying efforts in congress) is that by definition entertainment is perceived of as a luxury. If manufacturers of the necessities of life treated consumers this way they would be hauled before congress, and made to explain themselves.

    Cable companies tend to be local monopolies and act accordingly. Our local cable is structured such that you can get a 10 dollar basic cable rate, but this only gives you the same channels you can get with a rabbit ear antenna, and at not much higher quality, the next "tier" is over 4 times more expensive. Throwing in a load of crap you probably don't want and making the next bump up to HBO and Showtime seem much more sensible (hell it's only 10 dollars more...). Do you know of any other products that go from entry level to more than 4x plus luxury model with no other steps between? Even with the full service, some ad-supported channels are scrambled. I have paid for "The Sci-Fi" channel, but I can't set my VCR to tape it directly, I have to be sure and leave the Sci-Fi channel on, and record it from my cable box (there is some user unfriendly way to program your cable box for a timed recording, so now you have two things to program, and multiple points of failure possible).

    Of course the more money the entertainment industry can make, the more money that can be collected in taxes. Thus the government has the same addiction to increasing entertainment revenues, the same way they are now addicted to increasing gambling and lotto revenues, whether their citizenry spending a disproportionate percentage their income on these things is a good thing or not.

    Worst of all is the disdain the industry has for its customers. We have all seen the FBI warning at the beginning of a VCR tape, and accordingly fast-forwarded through. Now comes DVD, and you must sit patently sit through this thing every time (which has been timed for slow readers), and if you try to skip forward, I think in some cases it resets the time out clock. Of late I also get to sit through this warning in two other languages as well. Some DVDs even force you sit through commercials for related projects. I bought this DVD, I own it, it shouldn't lock me out of controlling my DVD player. It also shouldn't surreptitiously put software on my computer if I choose to view it there, nor coerce me into installing special software to view. Guess what, that improved DVD viewer they offer you is likely to break your sound drivers, and if it's your mom or dad, being good citizens by following the DVD instructions, well then they are just screwed, since the DVD distributors really don't have any legitimate reason to be mucking around with your computer's settings, and now every thing is horribly broken (I still have trouble explaining to my dad why the play button on the DVD remote won't play the DVD, and he has to "select" play from the entry screen with the select button).

    So now we want to give the over the air broadcasters the power to be just as manipulative and coercive as cable and DVD? Ironic that I took my digital rights for granted until everyone suddenly wants to manage them for me.