Interview With The MPEG Committee's Founder

JasonFleischer points out this "interview with Leonardo Chiariglione, digital video pioneer and founder of the MPEG standards committee, is available on the public access section Scientific American's website. In the interview Chiariglione explains the motivations and hopes for his new Digital Media Project -- an attempt to integrate existing technologies to create a transparent, universal, non-proprietary system for digital rights management. Of particular interest to some /.ers may be his old article from Linux Journal that talks about the relationship between Open Source and MPEG standards."

Comments

YAGDS

[abiggerhammer]

Standards are standards; the trick is getting people to adopt them.

DMP sounds like a nice idea on paper, but will the recording studios ever go for something that will allow people to share files, even if playback is (supposedly) limited to subscribers-only? How long before such playback limitations are cracked just like the DRM for iTunes?

I have yet to see the uncrackable DRM scheme, and no reason to assume one can ever exist. If humans can write it, humans can break it.

Re:YAGDS

[abiggerhammer]

Takes a Long Goddamn Time, but it can be done.

Besides, the question's irrelevant. DRM via encryption to a subscriber's key? Whatever. If the subscriber can generate a listenable stream (which is, duh, kinda the point), then it's possible to turn that stream into a non-DRMed file. Anyone with legitimate access can create illegitimate access if they're so inclined and have the technical skill to do it. And, if the readership (postership) of /. is any indication, there's no shortage of people who are so inclined.

Re:YAGDS

[JamesKPolk]

Wrong. The point of DRM is to prevent the adversary (the customer) from circumventing the copyright protection and distributing the work unprotected.

The iTunes crack does exactly that.

Re:YAGDS

[Ogerman]

I have yet to see the uncrackable DRM scheme, and no reason to assume one can ever exist.

Lets be even more to the point: It is physically impossible for there to exist a non-proprietary DRM scheme. DRM, by very nature, is security through obscurity -- hiding the secret key *somewhere* on the users' own machine. DRM is incompatible with the concept of general purpose computing and most certainly with Open Source software. As an analogy, think of those old pay-TV decoder boxes that were filled with epoxy or tar to prevent tampering.. Is that what you want your computer to become? Just say no to DRM-laden hardware, software, and content! And do support independent media!

Some people will love it, just not users

[eclectro]

From the interview;

For example, you could play a specific title until a certain date, or you could buy a subscription allowing you to play anything you want for a given period.

That's what he is working on. I'm sure the RIAA loves the idea of "rental" music.

Apple not only has a more solid model of music ownership with itunes, they will have done it first. Luckily this project is going to show up late to the party when they unveil it two years from now.

Nothing new here. Move on.

Re:Some people will love it, just not users

[fucksl4shd0t]

Apple not only has a more solid model of music ownership with itunes, they will have done it first. Luckily this project is going to show up late to the party when they unveil it two years from now.

Emphasis mine, of course.

I think you hit the nail on the head. I read the first article (well, the paper about MPEG and OSS) and couldn't help but think he was trying to say "let's work together, but we're not budging". And that's not helping the problem anyway. Compromise, right? Both sides have to give.

When I read the interview, I couldn't help but think he was right in a lot of ways, such as when he talks about how the experience isn't any different now than it was before digital music (at least, before digital music like we know it now). Sure we can rip our CDs and carry them around on a series of nice-looking and nice-working mp3 players (I have one of my own, but it's CD-based :( ). Great. But the experience hasn't changed. Not until I buy that $400 device from those River people, anyway. But I also couldn't help but think "too little too late". If they had worried about the DRM stuff 10 years ago, all the problems we're having now would have been averted.

See, it looks to me like he's honestly trying to keep fair use rights, even if he's not formally saying "fair use". He wants the digital experience to be realized by everyone, and he knows that content producers (or in the case of record labels, content distributors, blech) have to come on board for it to really work. It's pretty obvious (and I think this guy knows it, based on the interview) that people want the "digital experience" for which he's trying to create a standard and therefore an opportunity, and people are trying to make it happen on their own, and even having limited success (I must admit that my own music collection is more portable than it has ever been and more accessible in the process, and I've done the same with my movie collection).

The problem is that it's too little too late. He mentioned the stalemate he's trying to resolve, but I don't see it resolving his way. For one thing, I'm not jumping on his bandwagon without at least some solid clarification, and if he and the content producers/distributors want to get my money, they must give their part of the compromise, whatever that may be. I'll give my part, I'm offering it! But I want something in return, and if there's anything I've learned about the content producers/distributors, they need to give first. 'Cause if they don't, then I'll give and give and give, and they'll take and take and take, and before you know it I've given them everything for nothing in return.

Compromise or obsolescence will resolve this stalemate, and neither side seems to be willing to compromise at this time. Maybe if the RIAA and MPAA got a little less agressive and a little more giving then we'd give right back. Maybe. At least with the RIAA and the record labels we can (and are!) starting to take steps to render them obsolete. You'd think that makes compromise inevitable, wouldn't you? ;)

As far as actual formats go, I don't think I'd mind a whole lot having music files that couldn't be played after a period of time. Nor would I mind if my copy couldn't be played by someone else. Not a whole lot at all, in fact. What I do mind is that all the DRM schemes so far proposed require closed source phone home software. For my own sanity and conscience I require software installed on my computer to come with the source code, or at least that it's readily available. And I also require no phone home software that might phone home with my privacy in its packets. And I also require that if software does phone home, I know what it does, what it sends, and so forth (hence one reason among many why I require the source code to any program I install on my machine). If they can make the format work and still meet these requirements, I'm giving and they'r

Patents

[heironymouscoward]

Incidentally, since the MPEG standards are so heavily dependent on software patents: there is a demonstration in about 1 hour in Brussels against the EU implementation of software patents.

Any "standard" which you need a licence for...

[jonwil]

Any "standard" which you need a patent licence for is not a good standard.

Any standards body worth dealing with should insist that patent holders licence the patents such as is necessary to implement the standard with no royalties.

Re:Any "standard" which you need a licence for...

[JamesKPolk]

Patents and standards are opposing forces.

The point of a standard is to get everyone to use it.

The point of a patent is to grant a monopoly.

If you want everyone to use something, it's stupid to then claim a patent on it.

Re:Any "standard" which you need a licence for...

[wine]

If you want everyone to use something, it's stupid to then claim a patent on it.

Unless of course you want everybody to pay you for the use of this standard, which is what the majority of these companies want.

Put out a standard and have everybody use it. Then after a while pull out your patents and force everybody to start paying you money or stop using your standard.

It's a sleazy business tactic, but we have seen this happening with gif and mp3 for example.

Unsettling

[leomekenkamp]

(...)many users will continue to steal music(...)

Is it just me, or is it very unsettling that the mastermind behind the revolution that has brought MP3, DVD and digital television into the lives of millions does not know the difference between illegal copying and theft? They are even in very different parts of the justice system (civil vs. criminal law IIRC, IANAL).

How about listening?

[InternationalCow]

I find it interesting that the guy says that they don't want to tackle piracy. They want to manage copyright. It would seem to me that both are two sides of the same coin. If you violate copyright, you're pirating, right? As an aside - I have always wondered how to interpret the act of listening itself in this regard. If I listen to a piece of music a couple of times, I am generally capable of replaying it in my mind. Have I then violated someone's copyright?

Bullshit Warning!

[infolib]

Now where did your hear the name Chariglione? Could it have been during the Felten dispute? (He was executive director of the SDMI standards body). This guy's a member of the industry that has sprung up, complete with lobbyists and all, trying to deliver "secure content" (read: snake oil).

If we look at what he wants it's clear that he has already chosen DRM to be the solution, and now we must find some way to make end users "accept" it. He talks a lot about "mapping traditional usage rights to the digital space" but the fact is that he's trying to replace court rulings on fair use with software. I wonder how well software will replace judges and jurors? (Remember, the preciousss "content" should at all times stay "protected") Someone please mandate "open" standards for playback devices!

He's sweet-talking, and politicians will really want to believe his promises - too bad that he's earning money from seeing DRM as the solution rather than the problem.

Chiariglione states, then ignores, the benefits.

[SgtChaireBourne]

Everyone expected that these technologies would bring huge benefits to everybody along the value chain. Creators would be given new ways to express themselves, end users would enjoy new kinds of experiences, and industries would find new opportunities for business. Ten years later, this is not happening. I don't see any industry that is really thriving on digital audio and video

Sounds like a myopic view. Creators were given new ways to express themselves and are using them:

Any band, big or small, that goes on tour has it's own CDs, I've even seen buskers in the subway with their own CDs.

Old and young people are compiling playlists from CDs they've bought or been given and playing them on the stereo or via a jukebox on their computer.

Amateur films and short films have been made very easy. No need to book time weeks in advance on equipment costing hundreds or millions. Go see a short film or youth film festival these days.

Home films and photography have taken off. Even retired people are sending around digital images, raw or touched up, of family and friends. I know people pushing 70 that edit and burn their holiday videos to DVD. Try that with 8mm or Super8.

Many musical instruments now have MIDI ports -- and they're being used.

There are more and more Zines on every subject imaginable. 15 years ago these were made with effort, but now there are many tools like Quark, Illustrator, PageMaker, etc.

Plain old books are being written and published like never before.

So, yes, maybe industry has missed the boat like he says, but let's not forget that industry is the result of customer demand not the other way around. If no one is buying buggy whips, then stop selling them, look around and sell what people are buying. The end users are enjoying new kinds of experiences as predicted, but some of the former players in industry have ignored or fought the new opportunities for business. Why should they be subsidized with our effort if they cannot find a profitable business model that suits the times and technology?

Re:MPEG 50 years from now?

[maharg]

Granted MPEG is not broadcast / archival quality (correct me if I am wrong),

You are wrong.
MPEG-2 as used for Digital TV broadcasts runs anywhere from around 3mbps (megabits per second) for drama content or talking heads/news, up to 8mbps for more dynamic content such as sports.

MPEG-2 for production can go above 50mbps, and sure is good enough for archival !!!