Slashdot Mirror
UK Government Advised to Promote and Adopt DRM
aking137 writes "From ZDNet, the UK Broadband Stakeholders Group (BSG) are recommending '...actively promoting the development and spread of global DRM-related standards' on the grounds that 'The UK's broadband boom is likely to falter unless more progress is made towards combating digital piracy'. Also in the article: 'The massive popularity of peer-to-peer networks also needs to be urgently addressed, the BSG said.'" The report (pdf) is online.
oh yeah, that's the most pressing issue with broadband.. that people aren't interested in the ways they wish to exploit it. egads!
I'm not here. This isn't happening.
Where broadband has failed because there's no DRM, or is it more like Japan, or maybe Canada?
Wait, maybe its like the US, where with DRM and the DMCA, broadband is failing.
Didn't anyone tell them porn and piracy are the main reasons for broadband?
At least they left the good stuff ;)
"I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
The fact that DRM doesn't actually solve anything doesn't seem to phase these people?
Sure you can make *your* software DRM but free open source multimedia applications already exist. The cat is out of the bag [so to speak].
If there are any psych majors in the crowd could you please explain to me the appeal of seeking out the "latest 3 letter fad" regardless of any the predictable outcomes [e.g. DRM techniques always fail because the problem has no solution].
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Fast downloads of MP3s are why people sign up for the first place. Stopping that would discourage my John Thomas from signing up for broadband. How can they say that "digital piracy" slows adoption of broadband? That just makes out with me.
Because the general populace HATES getting entertainment in a medium of their choice for free. What they REALLY want is a lot of constraints on using their entertainment purchases, and really aggressive copyright holders to sue them when they think they might have stepped out of line.
Oh yeah, need DRM in there quick or this "internet" thing will never catch on.
So making it harder for people to help themselves to media files over the Internet is supposed to encourage people to switch to broadband?
"The upcoming boom in automobiles is likely to fail unless we install governors on all cars to enforce speed limits."
Reading this, does anyone else go, hunh?
why is DRM an "issue" only MPAA and RIAA sees it as an issue everyone else sees it as them trying to make more money.
It's a fair point to assume the more access to high-capacity connections then the easier it is to download large-volume copyrighted material.
... but I agree broadband in the UK has more pressing issues at the moment, like when are we all going to get access to it?
From this viewpoint I would argue the report is at least far-sighted.
The UK's broadband boom has been caused by digital piracy. Kazaa and the like are nearly the only reason anyone I know has got a broadband connection. The only other reason is online gaming, but everybody I know who plays games also downloads music and films.
one of the main reasons for getting broadband is so you can download large files faster. large files like songs, movies, pr0n, warez...
"Digital Rights Management and micro-payments are becoming 'make or break' issues for the whole of the broadband value chain," said Antony Walker, chief executive of the Broadband Stakeholder Group, in a statement.
The value of broadband isn't determined by which businesses deign to offer pay services requiring a high speed pipe. The value of broadband is based entirely on what the end user is willing to pay for a high-speed pipe to their house. I'm sick of these rat-bastard marketroids who keep trying to redefine the utility of internet connectivity based on their [TV/radio/other mass-media] mindset: "we talk, you listen (and buy)". Broadband is doomed unless they can sell stuff to us? Broadband is doomed unless they can force us to pay-per-[view/listen/read] for the media we "buy"? Broadband is doomed unless they get to keep our credit card number on file to make paying them [easy/automatic/mandatory]? Please...
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
should read
'The UK's broadband boom is likely to falter if more progress is made towards combating digital piracy'.
Call (206) 338-5780 COLLECT for information about a genuine BA, BS, MA, MS, MBA, or Ph.D.
I don't understand their position. Oh wait. Unless they are getting pressure from the entertainment industry to take this stance. Now it makes sense. I know this is a UK issue, so maybe things are different over there. But I just don't understand how online piracy is preventing the spread of broadband services.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
This is probably true. I work in an organisation that requires content from the people that Slashdot love and then hate on an almost daily basis.
They have made it abundantly clear that if we don't support DRM, they will not give us any content. There is no room for negotiation.
As much as I hate DRM and some of the ideas behind it, I realise that when companies make that kind of demand there is nothing we can do about it. Sure, we could say "push off, we don't want you" but then that would be a monumentally dumb move and in the end, if we kept that stance up, we'd have nothing to sell. Plus, before you start - we are a big company. This is not a case of us verses the big guys.
When every single company you work with is starting to make those demands, you have no chance but to comply.
So in that sense, I think they're probably right. If content providers see that the UK is making no effort towards adopting DRM, then they simply won't sell there. Again, there is no room for negotiation - like it, or lump it.
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
Let us not forget that one of the UK industries that export the most is the music industry. Now you might understand the logic behind this report.
I'll do it for cheesy poofs.
Water, electricity... bandwidth?
Water and electricity are commonly billed on a usage basis -- you pay $X per gallon of water, you pay $Y per megawatt of electricity. This causes certain actions, such as conservation of water and electricity, which are beneficial as these are limited resources.
Bandwidth is also a limited resource, and as it is being more and more dependent upon by business and government...
If people were paying for bandwidth like they do for many other utilies, conservation of bandwidth would be achieved and much of this piracy would be limited. When Danny's father gets the internet bill for $200, Danny's P2P software is getting uninstalled. If Danny leaves all the lights on in the house, or leaves all the faucets running water all day every day, we can easily see that his water and electricity bills would skyrocket and he would pay for his usage, as well as shortening the supply of these two shared resources for others especially in times of limited resources.
The days of flat-rate internet usage (should be) numbered. If I download a 650 MB ISO image of RedHat, or a 650 MB ISO of a pirated version of MS Office XP, it doesn't matter, similarly it doesn't matter if Danny is taking 30-minute showers or is just running the shower into the drain for 30 minutes.
Maybe that's what the UK should be looking at instead of all this DRM nonsense. The primary reason people download music is because they can get it "for free" since they are already paying their flat rate for internet access. If it actually costs them (in terms of $Z per MB) perhaps they will think twice about both downloading and potentially more expensive uploading of these files.
And maybe that will help some of these god-awful websites clean up their massively over-imaged websites.
MORTAR COMBAT!
AOL Time Warner
British Music Rights
Universal Studios
Panasonic
And my favorite: "The Work Foundation" (a fully owned subsidiary of The Human Fund) Source: Broadband Stakeholder Group's Website
And remember, never attribute to studpidity that which can more accurately be attributed to a global conspiracy.
companies can take over the world
You know, I've come to wonder what issues people really honestly have with DRM.
My primary reason for disliking it is really an engineering one -- it's really, really hard to do DRM, at least on plain ol' audio and video. I'd put it on the same level as antispam legislation -- I'm pretty sure that it isn't going to work, and there's a lot of irritating legislation that indirectly impacts me (like ability to grab information from ISPs by copyright holders...privacy issue that I'm sure will be abused in the long run) and money wasted on lawyers in the meantime.
Most folks on Slashdot are the technorati. They were, in a much higher percentage than other groups, using MP3s and other forms of audio trading well before anyone else. They caught the "sweet spot", where they could pirate music without everyone doing it, so that those that pay subsidized the development of popular music. Piracy hadn't yet hit the point of moving music towards the public good dillemma (where nobody wants to pay for it because it's easier to pirate). Now, though, it's easy for anyone to download music, and the subsidization of the folks that used to download music from FTP servers isn't there.
DRM as a concept isn't all that "neat feeling", but neither is copyright or other forms of IP. What is the actual, practical impact on you of DRM? In this case, Apple was unable to obtain non-US rights. To my way of thinking, that's a fairly minor issue for people. The biggest drawback is that a US citizen might become comfortable buying music in the US from Apple, then move, and not be able to use the route he has come to prefer.
How about cost? To most teens, cost of music is a pretty legitimate issue. I don't really care much any more, now that I'm out in the work force -- the effort of getting an album in the format I want with the quality I want really isn't worth it. I go to work all day, and when I come home I'd rather just spend a little money and get the thing in full quality. So if DRM prevents piracy, it doesn't really impact me much.
What about inability to trade music around? I guess this could be an issue for some (I know some people that lend CDs out left and right), but I don't. At least for me, this really doesn't affect me.
What about limited-time ownership of music? This I *do* find unacceptable -- I won't buy music that expires. The point's kind of moot, though, since attempts to commercialize expiring music and video haven't really gone anywhere.
What about inability to move from place to place with a music collection? Well, I'm biased -- I live in a first world nation so forms of region coding tend to screw me over by letting media companies charge me more. While I've never moved out of the US, I'd like the ability to do so, so I consider region coding sufficiently irritating that I would be happy to break 'em. Incidently, I don't believe I've yet seen a DRM lawsuit over violating region coding -- the media companies aren't willing to test it, and I suspect it might fall over in court.
May we never see th
Cheers,
Ian
This trend of allowing corporations to dictate law to politicians also needs to be urgently addressed, but I don't see them recommending anything in that regard...oh wait...you usually don't make recommendations that will lessen your power.
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
Broadband what?
Large parts of the UK can't get broadband and these clowns are coming up with DRM recommendations?
Piracy is a problem, but with all the factors put together is it any wonder people are saving money copying music? house prices are very high (£125,000 average UK house price), council taxes have soared, NI contributions have gone up, fuel prices are slightly higher. The average UK citizen has between £2000 and £3000 worth of credit debt.
'The massive popularity of peer-to-peer networks also needs to be urgently addressed, the BSG said.'
I'm sure what they mean is to try their darndest to shut down p2p networks, but in the words of Hugh Grant, "that's just silly." Why do they have to be addressed this way? Why don't we address the broken IP and copyright legal system instead? Why don't we address the VERY broken entertainment and recording industry?
Don't become a regular here, you will become retarded. -- Yoda the Retard
I think the point is that broadband could do with more killer apps. Currently companies are unwilling to let their content loose on the net due to piracy concerns, whereas if there was a pervasive, fairly reliable DRM system, a lot more companies would make use of broadband, which in turn would make people more likely to buy it.
Sure, you may say, why would people pay for what they can get *now* for free?
a) It's still not that easy to get. Sure, you can use kazaa, but it's not really reliable or quick
b) Legal systems would get marketed. I'm sure this makes a lot of difference. If people were getting ads on TV all the time advertising on-demand movies, streaming music etc, they'd be a lot more tempted to get broadband.
And an echoed cry was heard around the countryside, "Will the last one leaving the island, please turn the lights out?"
Speaking as a born and raised Englishman, I'm considering leaving this country as it increasingly goes down the pan. I was a fierce patriot once - but times have changed. I simply can't find a way to be proud of being British any more. I know I'm not alone in thinking that it may well be time to head back into old Europe - I have loads of friends in the process of emigrating.
Maybe I'll look into moving to France...
[The] UK's broadband boom is likely to falter unless more progress is made towards combating digital piracy
Actually, the more piracy there is, the more broadband is needed / utilized. There's absolutely no reason to combat piracy, where growing the broadband market is concerned.
The BSG is the Broadband Stakeholder Group. Fortunately, they do provide a list of members.
But more than likely, it's NTL who are pushing for this, ever since the bad publicity they received over the broadband cap they tried to impose.
Many unsigned and independent musicians provide free downloads of their music on their websites as a way to attract more fans. Here's some from my friend Oliver Brown for example. Many such musicians, while relatively unknown, are as good as any major label band and certainly an improvement over the pablum they serve up on ClearChannel.
You can find many more examples in my new article:
- Links to Tens of Thousands of Legal Music Downloads
The article also explores some of the historical and legal issues behind copyright, and suggests steps the file traders can take to make file sharing legal.If you're a musician who offers downloads of your music, I can link to your band's website from the article if you give my article a reciprocal link. Please follow the instructions given here
Request your free CD of my piano music.
If it depends on Tony Blair, aka US joyful puppy, then the UK will have DRM.
This is sad. So sad.
-
Roses are #FF0000, Violets are #0000FF, find / -name '*base*' |xargs chown -R us && mv zig greatjustice
One of the recurring themes with Media providers is that they need a way to make more money of the sam variety of product with each new inovation.
Examples from the RIAA include the fact that a lp record would cost $8, and a casette tape of the same recording would be sold for $9. When CD's came out they upped the price immediately to $10, then over the next 15 years ramped it up to $15 per album. As they realized they could add features onto the CD, such as data tracks with atrax compressed editions of the music, and possibly video clips in mpeg format, they bumped the prices up to $18-$20 for an Album. (More if they could find a way to make it multi-disk.)
Similarly going from vhs, (which I realize the movie industry did not want to use at all initially) where a movie would cost between $5.99 and $20, (at a time when the same movie was shown 6 or more months previously in theaters for $4.00, $2.50 Matinee) to DVD, the Movie industry generally bumped the price up to between $9 and $29 depending upon the features they decided to include, and their take on the potential market for that movie.
Broadband is their next target. They want to sell you the option of watching any of most of their library of videos. However they do not trust the existing platform because it is altogether too easy to pirate the videos that they would like to provide for you to watch.
Yes the current boom is largely due to piracy of one sort or another. Whether it is MP3 audio, or Divix video, is only peripherally important. They believe that there is a much larger market for them if they can get to the vast majority of customers who will not pirate their material.
If they can charge $4.99 to ppv a movie they released last year, and $2.99 for a movie from 5 years or more ago, or $.50 to p4p an audio track from the last year, and $.25 for more than 5 years ago, they think that they could be making significantly more money. They may even be willing to sell you a copy of the same movie for 3 times the ppv, or an audio track for 4 times the p4p cost.
The disadvantage for them is that they need an even larger potential customer base than they can get from the current broadband customers. They realize that they are not going to be able to charge those prices to people who can get copies of their material free for the download from some pirate site or network.
Since they believe that their ability to provide content is what will continue the boom in sales of broadband, they think that they have a serious voice when it comes to what the users of that network should be restricted to attaching to the network.
I am not saying I agree with them. Just giving the logic behind it. I happen to think that there is a sufficient market for broadband without video or audio on demand from the members of the MPAA and RIAA, and their equivalents in other countries.
Then again, I have been known to be wrong.
-Rusty
You never know...
The massive popularity of peer-to-peer networks also needs to be urgently addressed
Yeah, because if people massively use peer-to-peer, then they probably want their representatives to put an end to that. Or perhaps they don't?
File sharing technologies which facilitate the direct infringement of copyright have the potential to destroy important areas of creative, cultural activity: shrinking rosters of creative talent in the music industry bear compelling witness to this fact.
Notice that last line there: shrinking rosters of creative talent in the music industry bear compelling witness to this fact. - This is the only 'fact' it seems in the document which isn't backed up by various statistics. Its worrying how government documents can make hard statements like this with no presented evidence (I'll be contacting them on Monday to ask for some).
Notable the evidence involving statistics is geared up to attack the file-sharing networks ie: Kazaa currently running at 2.5m downloads/week.
I believe that the BSG is a Government advisory group started by Patricia Hewitt, I'm worndering, being as they 'advise', what gives this group so much expertise in the matter?
The report is Authored by Nick Garnett of the Simkins Partnership (Media&Entertainment Lawyers) - He reveales few if any sources of information in the document so we have to assume that he is the oracle of all things P2P and Internet.
I dislike the way our govenment tries to 'Blind with statistics' especially when only the statistics of convenience are shown. Clearly the government is attempting to scare the UK broadband stakeholders into co-operation.
They have scheduled September 2003 for initial talks; I'm yet to discover if any discussions will be public. I would suggest that if there are public talks, members of the general UK IT community should be in attendance before we get our legs cut out from under us by DRM side-effects.
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
P2P is pretty heavily demonised. "Filesharers don't [...] pay for the infrastructure they use", is the old argument that just because you were sold a 1Mbit connection doesn't mean that you should expect to use it. This is absurd, because the only way that you could pay for the infrastructure would be to buy content from your ISP. That relegates "broadband" to being just another way to pay-per-view. Excuse me, but I can already do that. Don't expect me to pay you extra for some of bits that turn left at my cable splitter rather than right.
They also make the (seperate) point that large scale copyright violation will lead to less money going to content producers, which means that less content will be available. Yes, yes, the economy will collapse, we'll waste our money on things like mortgages and food instead, cats and dogs living together... There's no acknowledgement that if the incumbents die off because they won't change, then maybe, just maybe, something might spring up to take their place and supply the demand under the new conditions. Yes, you can't "compete with free", but why the presumption that content is only created in order to make money? Instead they propose DRM [sic] as a mechanism to prop up the incumbents, again repeating the fallacy that copy rights are designed to protect profits rather than to put work in the public domain. Look, chumps, it doesn't matter how it gets there, or how much money changes hands in the process, as long as someone is prepared to make and distribute it.
I'd go on, but it's just repeating itself from this point. Bear in mind that they assert that "The DVD Video format [is] still relatively secure." Judge from that whether this report is worth your time.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
If you want to know what the problem with DRM is then you should read this story by one of the leading minds of the GPL/GNU, Richard Stallman:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
It's an article in which reading is outlawed, made possible by Microsoft's DRM, and corporations' ideas of what copyright should be.
He also has many other essays too.
This bedroom's conclusion is that these people are talking bollocks, as surely digital piracy is one of the single most attractive reasons for getting broadband in the first place!
If I actually feel the need to manage MY digital rights, I will do it myself.
* Carthago Delenda Est *
Okay, probably not the internet, but MSNet (or something similar). This will be like the internet but more business friendly and it will be cheap for users, probably free with new computer and console purchases. Companies will pay to be on MSNet because all machines must be DRM-enabled AND consumers will want it because the speed will be measured in gigabits and be able to access the latest music, movies, etc. Of course, for a consumer to be on MSNet, you need an MSBank account that allows for simple and quick purchases.
Once MSNet is up, the internet will go back to the geeks and the universities and MSNet will be the choice for consumers and media companies!
Come join MSNet, Secure, fast surfing without the geeks :)
It's coming, as soon as the DRM hardware is available - look for an announcement by 2005.
Ok, I know it's counter intuitive, but bear with me. I think DRM could possibly make music, movies, books etc, MORE readily available for free.
I've layed out my idea in my blog. I could be wrong but I think it works. The only barrier I can see here in the states is possible DMCA issues resulting from decrypting DVD's or some future encrypted audio format.
DRM can be used to subvert fair use, or protect it depending on whose hands it's in.
As far as I'm concerned, they can go right on ahead and withhold their 'content' forever. I don't need my PC to be a $1200 TV, when my $300 TV fits that niche perfectly. I watch too damn much TV anyway.
"Lawyers are for sucks."
- Doug McKenzie