Slashdot Mirror
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.)"
Microsoft would do anything with mp3 more than is necessary. They'd much rather have people using their WMA format.
I disagree. It's not just for smartphones, but a way for you dvd player to talk to you pc, which, currently, it can't. Granted, it's more than likely that whatever scheme they come up with will have DRM (sony is an riaa member after all), but I don't necessarily think that the driving point is to add drm to already existing standards.
The more I'll switch to alternative media. Modern music is overproduced and boring anyway.
Home hacking is going to be real fun. Now it's me who has the remote :D
You know, even bring up Kazaa and the like only hurts the cause because (and I don't think anyone will dispute this) the vast majority of the files available on Kazaa and the like are copyrighted.
The better tact would be to say "even if they've been downloaded from any of the hundreds of free (or pay) and legal sources of .mp3's all over net" or "if they've been ripped from CDs that you bought."
This isn't about being able to share content downloaded from Kazaa. Oh boo-hoo, you can't play the copyrighted song that you didn't buy. The much bigger problem is the content that I paid for, was actually free, or that I have fair use rights to play. If DRM gets in the way of that, then's when I get angry.
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
[I don't see why] Microsoft would do anything with mp3 more than is necessary. They'd much rather have people using their WMA format.
exactly.
anything that makes MP3 less convenient for people in M$'s mind is a good thing. time to start pushing ogg to your friends and neighbors.
my pet machine
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.
StrategyTalk.com, PC Game Forums
...the EmbeddedWatch article is just a little paranoid. While I have no doubt that the companies with interest in this group wish to push DRM technologies, there is a second very legitimate reason to have such a group. And it's spelled out very clearly in the CNet article - working together to create communication standards. EmbeddedWatch shouts, "Just use Wi-Fi!". But how did WiFi come to be popular? Only after millions of dollars in wasted R&D for other technologies that didn't pan out (HomeRF is mentioned). This group will allow companies to communicate during the R&D phase, and ideally agree on a standard before investing millions of dollars in incompatible (and competing) ones. Be skeptical if you want, but don't cry wolf and immediately delcare the entire purpose of the group to subversively destroy our media rights.
-j
Tin foil hats are in, gentoo tshirts are in, microsoft tshirts are out.
;o)
At least Microsoft won't have to worry about running out at Comdex
Beep beep.
Ploy shmoy. These guys are our friends arent they?? They are just trying to help us by giving us new and innovative technology!! This is so wonderful!
*ARGH!* Stop throwing things at me! *OUCH!* I was just joking, *ACK!* I swear!
I'd rather be a conservative nutjob than a liberal with no nuts and no job.
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
You never know...
"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?
(This sig intentionally left blank)
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?
"I am slashbot, hear me roar!"
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.
.mp3 file.
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
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.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
On a side note, I just realized that windows media 9 kicks ass. If you go to amazon to listen to a song off a cd, listen to it in windows media, then real player. There's no comparison. If you listen to the two side by side then that would be a comparison. If there isn't a comparison then I don't understand what you're trying to do.
Actually, WMA doesn't kick ass.
We already have proven that OGG kicks WMA and MP3's ass.
I'd rather be a conservative nutjob than a liberal with no nuts and no job.
Alexander Wolfe's EmbeddedWatch.com has just dropped somewhere below the Inquirer on the credibility scale. First, Wolfe claims that a few piddly Microsoft patents cover the entirety of digital video-on-demand. Now, he sees Microsoft and Sony in the same working group, and concludes that it must be a DRM scheme that will retroactively lock down every file on your system.
Note to Timothy: You are being TROLLED! For free publicity, apparently. How else could you explain this block at the top of EmbeddedWatch's front page?
This sig intentionally left blank.
First off I'd like to make a point to say that I support DRM. I support it if it keeps people from doing something illegal, ie. downloading movies, music and software for that matter that is copyrighted without paying for it. There is nothing wrong with that. 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.
Next, we do need a standard so that mulitple devices can talk to one another over a wired or wireless network to share media files. You call e-mail a way to do this. Sure it works, but it's cumbersome and barbaric. What I want is the abillity to turn on my set top box connect to my pc, and stream some music to the whole house. Anyways, the point is that we do need proper protocols for this kind of thing, sometimes I think people scream wolf way to much.
Later,
Phil
Way to go. Lets look at CNet's article. It states
set to unveil a joint effort to make sure that their products--from computers to DVD players to cell phone
Note this doesn't limit the communication to swapping between phones and DVDs as the article author seems to think. Note the slashdot article seems to leave out the computers part of the CNet article. Add that back in, and what do you have? A standard protocol for your home devices, computers, Pocket PCs, Palms, mobile phones, printers to swap files.
Lets now look at the example use given in the Cnet article
people would be able to play digital audio on their living-room stereo even though the music files themselves are stored on a computer in the den.
Sounds useful doesn't it? Does it sound like extending DRM? Probably note, especially as Microsoft and Sony each have their own DRM technologies.
The slashdot "article" justifies itself by pretending
The file can already be shared via wireless email or WiFi
Really? I don't know of a common mobile phone with WiFi, or a home stereo system, or a DVD. Strange, I don't have an email option on my stero.
I wish you could moderate slashdot parent articles, this one is either a Troll or Flamebait. Nice lack of checking even the CNet article Timothy.
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?
Hell is not other people; it is yourself. - Ludwig Wittgenstein
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.
Reading Slashdot is ruining my spelling and grammar.
Trustworthy computing is Microsoft's attempt to embed Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) into the Longhorn OS.
Reading Slashdot is ruining my spelling and grammar.
The whole article is stupid. What the hell would my cell phone have to do with my DVD player or MP3's in my living room??
You know, here's two things.
1. The music that I listen to is NOT under the control of ANY of the RIAA crowd, in any shape, form or fashion. They have ZERO claim on the music I listen to, they will NEVER have claim to it or be allowed to lay claim to or control it. The artists that I listen to have sworn to that.
2. I just ran cat5 everywhere in the house. I have a box full of my music in the computer room and it runs GnuMP3d (get it at freshmeat).
I have an *OLD* PC in the garage running Damn Small Linux (a Knoppix knock off, get it at ibiblio) with a sound card and speakers. I can go work on stuff in the garage and browse to the page created by GnuMP3d, with a few clicks I'm listening to my favorite music as I work. A full entertainment center in my garage. I rescued the PC from a trash pile, cleaned it up and made use of it. It was free. It cost me ZIP...
I've got some old Packard Bell desktop boxes too that lay flat. They cost me ZIP also.. I'm going to paint one black and slide it in with my AV equipment as an MP3 receiver, just like in my garage.
And for video, I plan to pick up a used Xbox soon for about $150 and turn it into a PVR. I've already got housewide satellite and AV wires run. I can control the AV center in my living room from any room in the house.
I want to know why I should throw all this out and replace it with M$, RIAA and MPAA approved equipment???
..... 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
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!