Microsoft-Sony Plan: A Media-Rights Ploy?

sk8rboi writes "Missing in Wed.'s (CNet) reports about the Digital Home Working Group (DHWG) effort from âoeMicrosoft and Sony to make sure DVD players and cell phones can communicate with each other over a home wireless networkâ is the real reason for the work--it's a DRM (digital rights management) play in disguise. Look at it logically. Why would an industry alliance need to define a standard to share an MP3 file between a smart phone and a PC? According to EmbeddedWatch, the answer is, it wouldnâ(TM)t. The file can already be shared via wireless email or WiFi. And both can read the file, since both support MP3. Consumer-electronics systems and computers can already interchange all sorts of files. But what they canâ(TM)t do--and what companies like Microsoft and Sony wish they could--is regulate the transfer of such files (aka block them if theyâ(TM)ve been downloaded for free from KaZaa). (DHWG, by the way, is actually led by Intel.)"

Comments

I dont get it...

[angst7]

At the risk of sounding like I've missed the clue-train. Can someone please remind me of why I want to use a smart-phone (whatever that is) to move my mp3s around? I pretty much use my cell phone for, you know, calling people.

---
Jedimom.com, that not-so-fresh feeling.

With i-link and hpnp...

[rusty0101]

I would suspect that Sony and Microsoft both think they have interconnectivity options available. The question really should be what advantage will either, or both see as a result of this.

Sony is a very divers company, with quite a bit of infighting. The Music side of the business (which may be hemoraging money shortly) hates the idea of any of the other product lines (mostly hardware) having the capability of handling MP3 files in any form.

Something tells me that most of the MD players out there have a firmware update waiting in the wings that will turn on their ability to play MP3 files, significantly boosting the marketability of the player. (Do you know of a lot of MP3 players of any capacity that will run continuously for 50+ hours on a single AA battery?)

Since I have not been actively looking for a DVD player lately, I do not know if they are meeting the market demands of playing CD's with MP3 files on them. With the exception of the $300 devices, I am not sure that there are many competitors making players without this feature.

One of the options that Sony could be doing with their DVD players is something HP and others have been doing with stand-alone media centers. It is trivial to implement on a PS2 with the Linux kit, but would be cheaper to implement in an otherwise stand alone dvd player. All the hardware is there to play MP3, almost all Sony media devices have i-link capability so there should be nothing preventing the dvd player from streaming audio from a pc, or with a QNX os, be able to mount shared media folders and run slideshows while playing music, or possibly play video. (Though to play Divx/mpeg4 might be beyond the standard hardware in a dvd player.

From what I have seen as the capabilities of Sony H/W engineers, I strongly suspect that the submitter is correct, this is a ploy to get DRM distributed within the house.

Might be a pain to go to the store, pick up a copy of MIIB only to find out that fan site for ST-V that you are hosting on your home system disallows you from watching the movie. (as an example)

Then again, this is my observations and thoughts.

-Rusty

Re:With i-link and hpnp...

[multi io]

You can currently link up two mac laptops via firewire and no other network interfaces, and exchange data/mount folders, etc. In other words the capability is there.

But I assume iLink only provides the physical connection, the "exchange data/mount folders, etc." stuff is handled by higher-level protocols (AppleTalk?). To make your stereo browse folders and stream MP3 files from your PC, you would need such higher-level protocols too.

OTOH, I'm wondering whether there are technical reasons why companies can't just settle on "WebDAV over Wi-Fi" or something equivalent instead of inventing whole new protocol stacks.

How about automatic interoperability?

[boer]

"Why would an industry alliance need to define a standard to share an MP3 file between a smart phone and a PC?"

Well how about for automatic media file discovery and interoperability between appliances? Or should all interop development be left for Apple while the rest of us go for closed source file transfer utilities and closed protocols that probably aren't supported on ones favourite OS?

The most interesting part of the article...

[ihatesco]

is this image

If I am not mistaken, barring the device discovery and control part, everything is already known, has a widely known standard, and is already interoperable. With the exception of DRM which is marked as "Proprietary/Vertical". Will that mean that Sony DRM stuff (which will work on a Montavista Linux Based platform will not be displayed on my Longhorn PC? That's crazy.

And what if this become a "standard" like Motif or CDE? (Yeah, a bloated, cumbersome standard, that Micrsoft will replace with something suited for her whims instead)

And free content will be able to circulate between one system and the other? Oh, yeah...

I can envision the chaos that will occur when I will be able to rip the movies from one of the n competing DRM technologies.

Everyone will be posting torrents on /, (slashcomma) with downloads to the "easy-do-it-all-crack-o-rama" program, and then will be out renting DRM "X" standard technology in order to spread the content between pcs, cellphones, and their taiwanese blueray players.

+ + + +
HTTP enabled phone. Why I suddenly foresee http://4g.goatse.cx (don't follow that link even if it doesn't work) for the future cellphones?

things i'd love

[zakezuke]

I'd love it if my DVD player had on it WiFi or ethernet. I already have cat5 runs and would enjoy output of my computer in the form of media files on my TV, which I already enjoy over analog cable. This in a way makes sence, the fact that a DVD player is just a glorified mpeg decoder, it would be the next logical step having it act as essentally a networked video card. WiFi ability would just be icing on the cake in this sorta setup.

And it's also not like people like my self wouldn't enjoy this ability, which makes a fair amount of sence, to extend to mobile phones and PDAs. It seems the next logical step in home entertainment, being able for your friend to come over to your pad and share his snapshots directly from their handheld device directly to your TV. Or even a .mp3 file.

These things make sence and are very marketable ideas. Hell, i'd buy a networkable DVD player.

But I think perhaps with the shadow of DRM that we should reserve implementations of these technologies to OSS. It's already been demonstrated by microsoft they are experimenting with "phone home for authorization" technologies and this just has far too much bad mojo. The last thing we need are remote enforcable EULAs.

Re:things i'd love

[zakezuke]

Already exists, think compact flash. Plenty of the new TVs have a built in compact flash reader

Last time I checked there were a number of compact solid state media types and no assurances that one handheld device use the same form of media as another hand held device. There is also no assurance that physical media will continue to be popular. Let's face it, zip and super disks were popular once and still are to some degree. Let's say you invested in a TV with the ability to read files from a 120meg zip disk. This would have been most spiffy in many ways, but pretty damn useless now as most people with cameras and handhelds use solid state storage. I have to admit part of the reason I bought my printer was because it took 3 solid state media types.

The point of hassling with wire or wireless connections is electronic compliance without worry of the physical complience to media. Let's say hypotheticly either your TV or your DVD player had onboard ethernet, and the ability to accept a video streem from a remote device. Even with wire based ethernet it opens up a wonderful world of just one freaking wire to your media center per device. Don't want a rat's nest behind your entertainment center, no problem. Shotty video cables eliminated, ground loops a thing of the past, and a little bit of digital convergence.

Run out of ports, get a freaking hub. Jack into the wall, jack into the center, doesn't freaking matter anymore.

I see exactly where you are comming from with the hassle. However, i've just spent 4 hours in the attic routing speaker wires so I can move my audio entertainment center to the kitchen and make more space for the video center, yet have them still be connected. Even wire based ethernet would have been a godsend, would have been NO need to put in all that extra work just to add essentally two wires.

As far as your TV, great! I personaly prefer my smart shit outside my TV. In the past 20 years we've seen VHS / Beta / VCD / VideoCD / 5 or so acronyms for solid state media. I don't want my TV to accept media, I prefer external media readers. Why upgrade my TV set just to play media when ya can buy sub $100 Vcr / DVD. Not that it isn't cool, I just don't want to upgrade my TV everytime a new media standard comes out. I'd rather upgrade outside the tube, but that's just personal choice. You might not want extra wires or the extra space required, and that's cool too.

Choo choo!?

[bj8rn]

The article says nothing about using your smartphone to move your mp3's around (CNet doesn't mention mp3's at all). It says something about letting your smartphone communicate with your computer (or DVD-player, toaster, whatever). Maybe you can record your phonecalls and easily transfer them to the computer this way?

Fair Use Rights

[chmilar]

For me, it comes down to one thing:

If I feel that some media or player has the potential to "rip me off" by restricting my fair use rights, I will avoid it. I don't want to pay for a song or movie, and then be restricted from using it in a reasonable fashion.

Since all current Digital Restrictions Management schemes do not guarantee my fair use rights, I will not subscribe to any of them. I would rather "go without" the media than put up with this crap.

DIE KARMA, DIE!

[iamdrscience]

I think it's really strange that anything that promotes DRM is an evil PLOY to steal our rights. I mean, I'm just as paranoid, anti-Microsoft, zealot etc. as the next guy on Slashdot, but I mean come on, it's not like DRM is an inherently evil idea, there IS an arguement for it. I disagree with the arguement but DRM isn't nearly the proven evil of other things.

*cue "you must me new to Slashdot" comments and moderators ignoring or modding down my comment*

Re:wrong

[Phishpin]

I don't want my DVD player to talk to my PC. I want to put a disk in and watch the movie without having to boot whichever box is connected to the player.

I also want a dedidated device for my remote control. If I lose my cell, I still want to be able to change channels. If I lose my remote, I still want to be able to make calls.

I'm not saying that communication between devices that would really benefit shouldn't be done. But what benefit do I get from hooking the DVD player and PC together?

I think that this "home of the future" tech simply adds complications. There's really no technological breakthrough discoveries, just some boring engineering with flashy ads (and an extra $25 on the price). If you want me to praise your technical achievements, reduce the costs while increasing ease of use without skimping features.

This comment brought to you buy a person that has computer controlled his garage door opener for fun, despite the complete impracticallity of it.

Re:Wolfe paranoid? Say it ain't so!

[Czernobog]

This is sinister and lowly, but have you thought the chance of this being a paid for article?
I remember reading a certain post about it, not too long ago.

Re:DRM is ok by me

[jorlando]

"The only problem I do have with DRM is if it prevents me from using the media that I have acquired legally, that pisses me off."

And who said that part is of concern when some company starts to draw a DRM specification? Remember DIVX (the DVD-like standard from Circuit City, not the decoder)? Pay 10 to watch a movie for 48 hours, 30 to own it and watch ONLY in your DIVX player (good, heh? you own it but can't take it to your friends house to watch with them... just like your VHS, records and CD... ops... none are like this? well... bad for YOU)

And the best part that was never addressed... and when I buy a new DIVX player? What happens? Well.. YOUR problem...

Nobody is thinking in fair use or consumer rights... as a consumer you are either a drone that must always buy new media, no matter what crap is up in the moment, no matter if you have a job or not... if you don't buy you are a thief, since you don't buy music, or movies you must be thieving it... with some kind of p2p... you are not allowed not to buy, since it would lead to a sales decrease, and sales decrease only happens due thieves using some scheme to steal the music.

I was looking the website of the Brazilian equivalent of RIAA and guess what they discovered?

Every region of the world that CD sales decreased are pirate ridden! Latin America had a decrease of 20% in the last five years... who's the culprit? pirates! internet and p2p! vevermind that the region is going down the hole... 20% of unemployement rate in Brazil, that or more in Argentina, Venezuela 30%... and the list goes on... not a single moron in these RIAA-like institutes thought that maybe when people don't have jobs they don't buy cd's!

England had a sales increase... due what? a good campaign on piracy and lowered prices... Japan? the same... hmmmm maybe the higher prices have something with lower sales? We had campaigns against piracy all over the world... Naahhhh... to easy! Is the fucking pirates!

You don't get it

[ajs318]

..... but you're not meant to get it.

There already exist open data formats which could be used for ensuring interoperability. All this guff is just to promote the idea of DRM for the wrong reasons.

Whilst I like the idea of signed source code that can only possibly have come from who it says it came from, so that I can choose if or not I want to compile it, I am less keen on the idea of other people being able to tell me what I can do with my equipment.


Imagine that the postal service had a true monopoly on the delivery of letters and parcels. You wouldn't be allowed to slip a note through your neighbour's door: you would have to go to the post office, buy a stamp and deposit it in the box there. You wouldn't be allowed to carry a basket of food to Grandma's house: you would have to parcel it up, and if Granny missed the delivery, she would have to trek all the way to the sorting office to pick up your baking.

If you want to buy goods from a supplier, they have to send them through the postal service, who will take your payment and ensure that the cost of the goods is passed on to the supplier. You are not allowed to get in your car or walk round to the depot and pick the goods up yourself, even if you pay cash on collection.

Now imagine that somebody just invented a way you could send a message from almost any computer to almost any other computer. How do you imagine that the postal service would react to that?


Well, the record companies are basically providing a delivery service for goods {in this case music} from the performer to the listener. If the listener chooses to pay neither the record companies' delivery charge, nor the cost of the goods from the supplier {performer}, the record labels regard this as stealing.

However, it is my contention that the record companies are more concerned about their being deprived of the delivery charge than about the artist being depived of their payment {which on a CD is mere pennies}. Now we come to the crux of the matter. The artist is only missing out on pennies. I would not miss this little amount of money, so what chance is there that they will miss it?

It's unfortunate that things have got the way they have. I could not honestly object to a scheme whereby someone downloading a music file directly paid the artist the money they were asking for -- it would almost certainly be less than the cost of a CD. But you can bet this won't be about paying the performers. The record companies will shamelessly use the image of the starving artist to justify lining their own pockets.


If they're even still around in a few years' time, that is .....