RFID Tags for Digital Rights Management

mathemaniac writes "RFID Journal is running a story about a group of researchers at UCLA working on a new RFID application that would provide consumers a means of watching DVDs of movies as soon as they hit the theaters. It could also be used to address one of Hollywood's biggest concerns: piracy of digital content. The group is researching a method of using RFID as a tool for digital rights management (DRM), wherein technologies are employed to protect media files from unauthorized use."

Comments

Pr0n example

[fembots]

I'm surprised that movie industry is not following up how pr0n industry can be so successful and profitable.

Being sophisticated and innovative in member management is one thing, but more importantly is the undeniable fact that pr0n industry actually produces something that viewers want to watch, maybe that is why people are paying to watch it. Pr0n is probably one of the most pirated product known to mankind, yet it's still a feasible business living through printed to digital materials.

There's a story about movie slump, the article mentioned that the industry needs something that can get people excited about going to the movies.

Re:Pr0n example

[Omega1045]

I'm surprised that movie industry is not following up how pr0n industry can be so successful and profitable.

The pr0n industry is successful because guys like tits.

Re:Pr0n example

[Chris Kamel]

pr0n is probably still profitable because of the ridiculous profit margins involved.

You could pay $20 for a pr0n DVD whose production cost something in the order of thousands of dollars.

Compare that to a multi-million dollar budget needed for a top (non-pr0n) movie and you've got a pretty different deal there.

Re:Pr0n example

[Deanasc]

Why should I go to a movie theator if it's just a giant screen TV set? I'll wait for it to hit HBO or rent the DVD and get the same experience with my 10 foot screen and PowerPoint projector. I remember when movies were a lush fusion of colors on the screen and not a bunch of pixels you can count by the foot. That's really what's behind the movie slump. The TV set really did kill off the theator chain.

Re:Pr0n example

[SYFer]

This is an excellent point, actually. There is much to learn from the porn industry and its amazing resilience. Hollywood has long played the game of deciding what people want to watch (and sometimes they do get it right) and then carefully policing people's access to it.

In my mind this is analogous to the old "security through obfuscation" argument in that when you try to defy the inevitable and control the situation through brute force of regulation and procedure, you you actually lose control--you literally challenge people to defy you. Look at the old Incompatible Time Sharing System and the brilliant way that the authors eliminated some hackers' desire to crash the system by essentially adding a "crash system now" command. Take away the artificial supports and content stands completely on its own merits. Porn is out there with everything going against it but, since the producers are so adept at delivering what people want, they can still make it work. George Lucas got on the program because he realized that if you truly deliver the goods, people will reward you and the desire to rip you off is lessened.

Re:Pr0n example

[Adult film producer]

You mean like reducing actors' pay to $500 and filming the movies at the director's house in a single day?

Actually we have real studios with lots of neat props and sometimes they take 2 or 3 days :)

Re:Pr0n example

[Tenebrious1]

I'm surprised that movie industry is not following up how pr0n industry can be so successful and profitable.

The porn industry is a completey different beast. It is profitable because they don't pay their actors millions of dollars for each film, especially when they make a dozen "films" a week. They don't pay millions to the producer. They don't pay tens of thousands for a script, and don't worry if they use the same script over and over again. They don't pay millions on advertising blitzes before the release. They don't pay millions to build sets, but reuse sets over and over and over and over again.

The only reason the porn industry is "profitable" is because they don't have anything like the budget requirements for a large box office movie. Porn manages to survive rampant copying only because it's so cheap to produce, the only need a few thousand people to buy the product to make it profitable.

Because the difference in the number of movies made, the budgets for each movie, and the number of copies that need to be viewed/sold to make a profit, there's no way the film industry can model itself after the porn industry.

Re:Pr0n example

[SYFer]

Well then maybe they've evolved a model that is not sustainable given the realities of the world. Perhaps they need to deflate the budgets a bit and focus on making good content. I remember watching them film "The Hulk" in my neighborhood and, as someone who exists on the low-budget fringes of the film world, I was astonished at some of the insane largesse. For the scenes on Telegraph Hill where the military stormed the poor Hulkster, they actually placed additional potted plants up on the Vallejo street steps (at no doubt great expense), but I could never even spot them in the final product. And, IIRC, the movie got a lukewarm response. They had a bunch of extras up on my roof as soldiers and I never saw them either. Those extras worked all day walking up and down the hill for each take. Insane. I'm not saying all films need to be low-budget guerilla crap, but Hollywood has gone so far over the line that they've built an unrealistic machine that simply can't be sustained.

Re:Pr0n example

[suitepotato]

Because the difference in the number of movies made, the budgets for each movie, and the number of copies that need to be viewed/sold to make a profit, there's no way the film industry can model itself after the porn industry.

Of course they could. Is Ron Jeremy doing Heather Hunter really any different from Bill Bob Thorton slamming Halle Berry? Only if you note the fact that you don't see the goods with the latter unless you freeze frame the latter's performance in Monsters' Ball.

All we need it higher quality porn or lower quality mainstream. They don't have to have gynecological closeups. I'm sure about as much as Playboy shows after midnight of Kirsten Dunst would satisfy us. I'll forgo high end SFX if I get to see Lucy Liu spread-eagle in the buff on the hood of a Trans Am with her fellow Charlie's Angels stars.

Re:Pr0n example

[dickrichardv8]

I am not convinced that the bugets for films are based on how efficent they want to be. The accounting can be skewed for different reasons. An actors contract based on profit can make profits undesirable as can the good ole' IRS. Make sure the extra's wardrobe includes a fur coat the same size as your wife's size and make the coat an expense and not a wardrobe department investment. Order real pizzas for props at snack time etc. Other businesses don't do that do they? The local Self Help business in my town is non profit but the president's salary (founder also) is a little too nice.

I want to buy another player... why?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see what's in this for the consumer. More DRM, less fair use? Great, sign me up.

Re:I want to buy another player... why?

[plover]

The "promise" is that you get to watch the movie the day it hits the theater. So on June 20th, you head over to Target and plunk down your $24.99 for your "advance copy" of "The Silmarillion" (starring Tom Hanks as Sauron), but you can't watch it until June 30th (or whatever.) If you pop the RF-DVD in the player, you'll get a commercial or twenty, the theatrical trailer, and probably a pre-release demo of "Shelob, the video game".

No waiting in lines at the theatre, you can just hit "play" at 12:01 AM if you want to watch it as soon as you can.

Great, sign me up too. I can't wait for DRM to make my life better.

(Please note that the previous poster failed to close his <sarcasm> tag, so my post gets it for free!)

Re:I want to buy another player... why?

[Pofy]

>but you can't watch it until June 30th

And the point of selling something but setting a "can't be used until later date" is? I really never understood it. Since all those getting it are the ones who won't see it at the theatre (hence why they bought the DVD), I really can't see a point. Just typical market control which is of no benefit to the customer. If they don't like people watching it, don't sell it.

LOL, they have no clue

[CrazyJim1]

They shouldn't spend more than 5$ on copy protection, as thats what it costs to rent a movie at blockbuster, and create infinate copies.

If they really cared, they could slap together an encryption technique in an hour, and have an internet delivery system so you could watch movies on your computer. It doesn't matter that the encryption system is crappy, it'd take longer to break than it would to simply pirate the movie in conventional ways. And if the crack becomes widespread, spend 1 more hour and change the system around.

So in conclusion, they could create a content delivery system and boost their revenue on movies with code from a system that could take a good programmer less than a month to develop.

Re:LOL, they have no clue

[Chris Kamel]

slap together an encryption technique in an hour
and have it broken in half an hour, Sony developed a technique that was broken with a marker pen. And I think that took them much more than an hour to "slap together"

This has some possibilities...

[ErikTheRed]

Hopefully, they'll use 40-bit encryption and rely on a proprietary algorithm as the principal means of ...

What do you mean it's already been done?

Oh well, back to the drawing board.

You gotta be kidding me

[Lifewish]

RFID and DRM? Are they trying to send every geek on the planet apopleptic or something?

Re:You gotta be kidding me

[mabhatter654]

Actually, the idea is a good one.. the thing all DRM needs is "uniqueness" which is exactly what digital technology strips away. In the era of records there was a "barrier to entry" simply because equipment to make records was so expensive there was no "non-commercial" middle ground.

The idea of an RFID tag makes perfect sense. With the new and shiny DMCA, it could be illegal to produce copies of the RFID tags. You could put the key on the RFID tag and manufacture some "proprietary" format with the embedded tag... they players would be required to "read" the tag to decrypt the data.

Of course this means that PC users may not be able to use the discs... But that's another story about marketing. One of the problems with publishing technology is that they have to trade off cheap with reproduceable... They've gotta come up with "gimmicks" Nintendo GCs "backwards" drive was perfect... I'd put RFID tags in the same category.

Ultimately, they have to build a better multimedia center that allows "piping" of content between formats without actually copying it. I've wondered for years why component makers have shuned the idea of "remote PC control" versus making a PC "player". Apple's Airport Express is a great "convergence" device in this respect..allowing you to remote control your itunes list, but pipe it anywhere in your house...we need more of that! Things like USB or firewire remote control would allow really simple media setups without having to hack anything... after all, you can get a cheap DVD player for your TV for about the same as a DVD-rom drive. Why can't you "pipe" that easily to your PC... that's the question to really ask, because then formats become irrelevant.

Re:You gotta be kidding me

[andy jenkins]

RFID and DRM?

The missing pieces for my sock drawer! I'm going to RFID my socks into pairs so I can track them, then DRM them out of compatibility with my flatmate's feet.

Sorted, now to work on biological DRM for my milk

Re:You gotta be kidding me

[shutdown -p now]

Sounds like a schema to get rid of piracy to me:

1. Release a DRM scheme based on RFID
2. Announce it on /.
3. All geeks (including those pirating movies) suffer heart attack and die
4. Profit!

Networking required

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

At first this looks like DECSS all over again but with the key on an RFID tag. The difference is that in the UCLA proposal the player has to phone home to verify the RFID tag.

This technology could conceivably be used for good. Imagine a player with a hard disk as well as a network card. It could auto-download interviews, making-of documentaries and so on as they get released after the DVD ships.

Of course this is the end of privacy. The RFID tag has to be unique to each copy of the disk, otherwise you could copy it wholesale. When the player phones home with the RFID info, they know who bought the disk and maybe even how often it gets played. Ick.

Re:Networking required

[anthony_dipierro]

At first this looks like DECSS all over again but with the key on an RFID tag.

DeCSS could have worked years ago, when writable DVDs were expensive. But now that I can get a dual layer writable DVD for 3 or 4 bucks, it's too easy to just bit copy the whole damn thing.

RFID tags are even cheaper, more like 30 or 40 cents. The writers themselves are expensive, but if this plan actually goes into action I bet you'll see the price of RFID writers come down real quick, which, hey, at least there'll be good to come out of it.

This technology could conceivably be used for good. Imagine a player with a hard disk as well as a network card. It could auto-download interviews, making-of documentaries and so on as they get released after the DVD ships.

You don't need RFID technology to do that. And without tamper-proof hardware, which is allegedly physically impossible, you're not going to stop piracy, because it only takes one person to break into the device and reverse engineer it.

Of course this is the end of privacy. The RFID tag has to be unique to each copy of the disk, otherwise you could copy it wholesale.

I seriously doubt the RIAA is going to be able to outlaw paying for DVDs with cash.

When the player phones home with the RFID info, they know who bought the disk and maybe even how often it gets played.

I also doubt they're going to force DVD manufacturers to build players that "phone home".

Re:Networking required

[cait56]

Networking Required is exactly the weakness here, as it was with the original DIVX. The RFID is not really a real improvement over the original scheme of "marking" the DVD with some flaws out of the normal reading range.

I see nothing inherently wrong with DRM schemes, but they need to learn from iTunes. The market has shown that a reasonable DRM that does not interfere with how honest people will want to use the content they are buying, will not meet with market resistance.

One of the legitimate things I want to do with a DVD that I bought legimitately is watch it on my laptop while I'm on the road. I don't particularly care to pay the hotel $11.95 so I can have wireless so i can watch a movie that I own.

And that's just one example of a legitimate use that is incompatible with network access. Not providing a complete profile of which movies I am watching when in perpetuity is another.

Advertising to the content providers...

[garcia]

The UCLA research group is developing the software and hardware components of a system
that would embed DVDs with an RFID tag and DVD players with an RFID reader so that the tagged
DVDs would play only in RFID-enabled players and only if the reader could authenticate the
DVD's tag. In order to authenticate, the player would also need to link to some type of
online network, similar to the EPCglobal Network, that would associate the DVD with a legal
sale. Through this system, the copyright owners (the film production company and any other
license-holders of the content) would have digital rights management over the work. But
viewers would not be able to play the DVDs without an RFID-enabled player because the tag
would essentially lock the disc.

I don't see anything there that allows me to exercise fair-use. I need to use some special
DVD player (the market has already proven they don't like this), I need to have an Internet
connection, and I need to buy some special DVD...

I apparently can't make a backup copy for myself, move the content to portable formats, etc.
Hey UCLA Research Team, remember this is necessary. Oh wait, you aren't being paid by the
consumers, you're being paid by the content providers...

The Motion Picture Association of America, a trade group that represents major Hollywood
studios, estimates that the U.S. motion picture industry loses more than $3 billion annually
in potential worldwide revenue due to piracy.

LOL. This is difficult to prove and we all know why. Thanks for the blantant bullshit
though.

This sounds more like advertising to the content providers than it sounds like some sort of
press release of what hey have/can do.

Simpler solution:

[Anonymous Coward]

Release the movie on a regular DVD as soon as it hits theaters. There's a guy down the street from me who is already using this business model, and it seems to work.

there's always the manual method

[Bananatree3]

Play the CD in a DRM player, and record from the speakers....

Just a MPAA pipe dream

[Valacosa]

"Rajit Gadh, professor in UCLA's Henry Samueli School of Engineering and Applied Science and director of WINMEC, says that the research going into the project is targeted at determining whether the concept is technologically feasible. `We're in the very early stages of this project--the first research stage'"

Someone care to explain to me how putting a RFID chip in a DVD could prevent a computer from reading the raw content of the disc and cracking that? I think it's been shown time and time again that DRM will be cracked, especially when the new technology can be attacked with conventional hardware.

Basically, reading the article this both seems technically impossible and a far way off.

On another note, if the MPAA really wanted the DVD to be available when the movie was in theatres, they'd just make it so now. But they're smarter than that; they know people won't pay twice for the same movie if both options are available at the same time.

And if you're watching "Fahrenheit 911" on DVD...

[Anonymous Coward]

You will immediately be reported to Homeland Security and the White House.

Burn, Hollywood, Burn

[Doc Ruby]

This proposal is exactly backwards. Hollywood's only advantage over the Internet in content distribution is the physical reality of premieres in theaters. Even if the movie has been leaked, lots of people want to go to the theatrical premiere.

Hollywood has relied more and more on the opening weekend, with unprecedented simultaneous premieres on many screens across the land. They could invest more glitz, making every premiere like the Golden Age fantasies, with skytracking spotlights, red carpets, celebrities and other hype that leverages their control of the unique spacetime event. They might hold advance ticket sale lotteries which draw stars to winning venues. They could cover the whole thing on TV, making 15-minute stars of attendees. And raise the ticket price, sell event merchandise. Ultimately, they'd have economics which demand seeding the "pirates" with copies linked to premiere sales.

The movie becomes the ad for the event, merchandise and access to the stars. They're already headed there; desperate DRM schemes like this one from UCLA just get in the way of a workable business model that exploits the Internet, rather than fighting their best customers and partners.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

MOD parent \/

[gerf]

Why do you assume that RFID is "evil" or unwanted by geeks? I use it at work to track pallets in conveyor lines. You can't imagine how much easier it is to track pallets with parts on them rather than track parts on a rolling conveyor using prox sensors.

Now, DRM is another story. I think that you've simply seen too many RFID articles on /. that link DRM, personal product, or human tracking with RFID. Those are completely unrelated to RFID in general, and are mere uses of the tool.

Overall, I think your opinion is as blindingly focused as those of the MPAA, RIAA, and all the similar organizations that you despise.

Re:MOD parent \/

[Lifewish]

It was a joke. I fully understand that every technology has beneficial effects, including RFID. I understand that the majority of privacy issues are overstated, although things like chipped passports still worry me. I am well aware how useful RFID can be in a number of situations, such as the one you described.

I understand that DRM, while being problematic for privacy advocates and those of us who like complete control over our own computers, is, when properly applied, one plausible way of encouraging more people to acquire non-infringing copies of media. I don't like it cos I fit into both the above categories but, as long as they don't figure out how to stop me re-encoding media in a decent format, I can live with their attempts.

I'm not keen on the RIAA or MPAA cos, viewed as monolithic organisations, they're both bastards. However, I understand that it's naive to label any one organisation or individual as completely good or evil - for example, a friend of mine works for Microsoft, and another is getting his education courtesy of IBM.

None of this stops me seeing the article title, having a sudden image of many millions of geeks having spontaneous heart-attacks, ruining my keyboard with the proverbial Morning Dew and deciding to share that little frisson of amusement with the rest of Slashdot, in the hope of cheering people up. My investments in the keyboard-manufacturing industry have nothing to do with it at all.

Forumalic Post

[Monkeman]

[obligatory "Big Brother" reference] [obligatory out of place Microsoft flame] [obligatory Soviet Russia Joke] [more 1984 references] [link to funny picture] [link to Goatse] [gung-ho "revolutionary" idea] [flaming MPAA/RIAA] [more Microsoft flaming]

So, um, listening to this

[mcc]

This just sounds like DIVX with some buzzwords added.

I imagine if they try to productize this, they'll fail for the same reason DIVX failed; the technology demands far too much of and is far too restrictive on the consumer while offering no benefits to anyone except the producer.

If movie companies want DVDs available at the same time the movie comes out they can just bloody well sell them. It's amazing how much proposed technology serves no purpose except attempting to overcome corporate insecurity*.

* Corporate insecurity. "Insecurity" not as in "Inadequately guarded or protected; unsafe" but "insecurity" as in "Lacking self-confidence; plagued by anxiety".

What does RFID add to this?

[Michael Woodhams]

You have an object that transmits information to the player via two methods: optical disk, and RFID. What is the point? Why not just put the data from the RFID onto the disk instead? Is it just a techinical issue that it is easer to add a unique ID to each disk by gluing on an RFID than to write it to the disk?

Meanwhile, people will get one of the new players, record the movie off the video output, redigitize and distribute. It is easer than smuggling a video camera into the theatre.

Re:RFID Disks & Players == BAD IDEA

[Anonymous Coward]

Now these liberal-indoctrinated college pinheads [...]

Because conservative-indoctrinated college pinheads are somehow above such notions? Do you just go around slinging anti-liberal rhetoric where ever you think it might stick?

Sorry, champ. It's not sticking. Try a substance other than bullshit sometime, it might help.

Unless the industry happens to bribe-er-persuade the current House and Senate to make such DRM-enabled players mandatory, then they'll simply go about the tried and true method of appealing to one of America's holy virtues: greed.

Throw enough flashy new features in a player, and the public will run over each to get their hands on it; DRM and all.

If you have a hammer everything is a nail

[EmbeddedJanitor]

The old adage is often true. In an RFID industry journal, you'd expect to see some outlanding ideas about what you could possibly do with RFID. I'm sure the industry would love to sell a RFID reader with every DVD player and an RFID with every DVD. That this is currently entirely impractical and unacceptable at present is not important

History shows us that people are subject to the tyrrany of small increments. Huge increments in cost , restrictions and rights are generally unacceptable, but people don't seem to mind small increments. Likely in 10 years time most people won't mind using an RFID DVD system so that terrorists can't watch Sleepless in Seattle (or whatever other line they spin us).

Bullshit!

[Loundry]

Gadh believes consumers would be interested in purchasing specialized early releases of DVDs, as well as the specialized DVD players needed to play them

"Specialized" DVD players that play "Specialized" disks to go along with the other 9, big, ugly boxes collecting dust on top of your TV (along with the other "normal" DVD player which plays only "normal" DVDs).

It won't work. History says so. Gadh believes consumers will be interested in purchasing this moronic system because it's in his interest to believe it. He's paid to believe it.

Oh, I hope they do this!

[Dr. Spork]

This is an absolutely absurd and annoying piece of technology. You can bet that this thing will be cracked very quickly, or tools will develop that capture the digital output stream of the DVD player. Then presto, it's in the wild, or at least copied onto another DVD without this stupid RF tag protection.

DVD Storm troopers

[DigiShaman]

ST (storm trooper): Halt there citizen!

Me: AAAhhh, where did you come from?!

ST:From a land far far away and a....never mind that. Hand over that DVD.

ME: Why, what did I do, I just wanted to watch the latest flick that came out.

ST: Yes, but you forgot to register your DVD with the Empire Media.

Me: Ohhh nooooosss! So will I get fined?!

ST: No, you just die.

Me: AAhhhhhrrhrrrghhhhh nooooooooo.

Re:Pr0n==cheap

[shutdown -p now]

This is very true. I never understood why, rationally speaking, should a movie star (or a pop singer, a soccer player etc) get such ridiculous money. Is it how much their contribution to society really worth? I very much doubt it.

Business and technology

[Mother Sha Boo Boo]

I still think that business should adapt to technology, and not the other way around.

Every movie going to include a player & a TV?

[Kerhop]

I recall awhile ago some radio stations were given demo CD's inside a portable CD player that was glued shut and the headphones were glued into the jack (or something like that). The fact that any device whether it be a RFID DVD player or whatever has to output to a display device of some sort. This is great if the consumer has a newer VCR or TV that's aware of the broadcast flag or whatever the latest fad is, however all it takes is one person with a first-generation VCR to record the movie and then capture into an MPEG in their computer. It's going to be a never-ending battle.

Completely Screwed

[Anonymous Coward]

In 25 years, when either a large asteroid or WWIV decimates civilization, we will be back to caveman times.

You have a laptop with a manual which explains how to operate the local fusion power plant...but, you cannot authenticate with a Media Protection Regime server.

Ditto for the manual on agricultural methods, repairing that '69 Chevy, treating that bacterial infection, et cetera.

And besides that, all of society is headed towards renting everything: your home, your car, your movie collection, your books, even your underwear.

You buy Star Trek: TNG with RFID. You go to let your kids watch it in fifteen years, and guess what: Paramount decides that you thieving bastards watching those old episodes are cutting into the ratings of Star Trek: Braga Does Not Suck so they shutdown the authentication servers thus rendering your $5,000 collection of Star Trek history worthless.

Ford is really hurting in 2010, so, they stop authenticating the ignition sequence in your 2006 Ford Craptang that you have kept in spectacular shape.

Fruit-of-the-Loom wants you to buy new underwear, so, they turn off the authentication for your year old undies. Now, your washing machine will not run with these undies present.

You have been warned.

Things never do change in this area

[suitepotato]

The MPAA still puts out their bogus estimation of lost monies that never would have being paid to them in a world of perfect DRM because the IP was total horsesh*t to begin with. Anyone remember the transition from cheap matinee movie houses to VCRs in the 70s to early 80s? Once, we had no choice but to listen to word of mouth of early victims or go see how bad it was ourself.

Then, cr*ppy movies got shunted to lower echelon theaters with lower ticket prices. Then to VCRs with the straight-to-video phenomenon. Given the pace of tech, the new lowest denominator should be straight-to-DiVX/MPEG2 and the industry should have already embraced it whole-heartedly. Of course, with the legendary mindset of people like Jack Valenti and his peers, it hasn't.

Instead, they're only encouraging piracy by not embracing the newer workable models, attempting to turn back the calendar to days where cr*p was forced onto us with no solution but total abstinence.

I might like to add that I've paid to see exactly three of the twenty-four movies I've seen in the last four years thanks to the movie industry's own largesse where promotional showing tickets are splurged to radio stations. Locally, my newspaper gets overflow tickets from one of several stations and so I see movies for free with the MPAA's and studios' blessings.

How is that any different in the end? Maybe releasing lower quality (camcorder screener) full length teaser copies to the net would actually drive people to the movies. In my case, they've driven me to buy DVDs. But still, they think they've lost on monies I was never going to pay them...

Who didn't see this sort of thing coming btw? Discs that have to have a sort of proximity sensor system to play because they're all invididually encrypted and the key to decrypt is on an rf chip embedded in the media? Easy to see this coming and just as easy to see mod-kits for the players hitting the net on Chinese web sites.

Re:Pr0n==cheap

[anthony_dipierro]

Same reason you get fined $1000 for littering on the highway. It's not that your litter costs $1000 to clean up (more like $0.10), it's that you have to pay for the 10,000 other people who littered and didn't get caught.

With actors, sure, if you hit it big you make lots of money. But for every Brad Pitt there are 10,000 Nic Wegener's. It's not really fair, but for now it's the best we've got. At least we've got the freedom to choose whether to hack code for a decent living or to risk it all trying to be the next Will Smith.

They could stop most piracy...

[raventh1]

If they just stopped trying to ruin the product, and get it out faster than pirates. They control the product, they can also get it out to the market faster than pirates. I know several people who never bought Doom3 that had it preordered, but got a pirate copy because it was out first.

The best way to defeat piracy is make no need. By creating more obstacles for the consumer, they make it easier to justify piracy (because Pirate copies don't have to call home to verify authenticity.)

Instead of spending money in court they should spend it on distribution. Napster only happend because it was the fastest way to get the product. If they were to release DVD videos at the time they premier in theaters they would stop camera piracy, and the motive for most casual pirates.

Re:Pr0n==cheap

[brogdon]

"You need CGI? No. You need expensive sets? No again."

People used to be able to say this type of thing about good movies. Maybe the reason the studios are so worried about losses due to piracy is that it might cause them to have to worry about silly things like artistry and solid writing. :)

21st century product in 20th century market

[Simonetta]

All this DRM technology will fail its intended purpose because the MPAA companies are trying to protect a 20th century marketplace that is fading ever more each day.

20th century film marketing was based on the pay-per-view model where a central facility (the movie theater) charged each person a fixed fee (the box office admission) for each showing of the film. It didn't matter which film was showing; customers paid the same entry fee. Unpopular product would not collect as many fees as a more-popular title.

In this model there is no price flexibility for the consumer. It's strictly take-it-or-leave-it. This model works when there is a limited number of viewing openings available (the seats in the theater) and limited product (one print of the film per theater and only a dozen copies of the film in the metro area).

This model fails when there is nearly unlimited product (all film titles from the past 50 years) on DVD or unlimited view openings. What happens in this type of market is that the consumers get to bid on what they will pay and the terms that they will pay for the product. The new technology has changed the marketplace by removing most of the previous restrictions. The new technology is not going away.

DRM is an attempt to force the previous market conditions onto the new business environment. The MPAA companies (the film studios) want to have the highly profitable previous marketplace conditions with the greatly expanded marketplace made available by DVD. Beaucoup bucks if you can make it happen.

But it won't work. What will happen if the MPAA companies actually get DRM to work is that the market for film product will shrink to a small percentage of what it is today.

Successfully integrating DRM into film industry product is not going to bring back the old way of presenting film entertainment product. It's just going to drive the current film consuming public into some other form of entertainment.

One of the reasons that parents are encouraged to read fairy tales to their children is that it is an effective way to get the collective wisdom of the ages passed on to the adults of the modern age who are too vain to listen to good advice coming from any other source. The fairy tale that the MPAA should pay attention to the story of the goose that laid golden eggs. This goose would lay one egg a day of pure gold. The villagers got greedy and decided to kill the goose, cut it open and get all the golden eggs that must be inside. This they did. And they found no gold inside. And they never got any more golden eggs.

Like the villagers, the film studios don't understand the new film market. Adding DRM to the product that is providing their golder eggs will be like killing the goose.

Re:21st century product in 20th century market

[Queer Boy]

It's just going to drive the current film consuming public into some other form of entertainment.

It already has. Have you seen the ratio of money made between video games and movies? I remember in the 80's the idea that one day you would be able to interact with movies. That day is here.

Re:21st century product in 20th century market

[westlake]

This model fails when there is nearly unlimited product (all film titles from the past 50 years) on DVD or unlimited view openings. What happens in this type of market is that the consumers get to bid on what they will pay and the terms that they will pay for the product

Disney has sold about 23 million copies of "The Incredibles" in two months. Most studios would be estatic if a backlist title sold 200,000 copies in ten years.

But it won't work. What will happen if the MPAA companies actually get DRM to work is that the market for film product will shrink to a small percentage of what it is today.

No one will give a damn about DRM so long as pristine digital transfers, feature-rich, reference-standard, DVDs like The Incredibles sell at retail for under $20.

Re:Pr0n==cheap

[toddestan]

I don't think the point of using unknowns is to help them launch their hugely successful acting career. It's about making movies cheaply. And Star Wars (atleast the first one) did this very well.

Re:RFID is evil.

[imnojezus]

It seems UCLA is evil, too.

Any USC student/alum could have told you that LONG ago.

Focus on content, not protecting crap

[frdmfghtr]

Maybe if the motion picture companies focused more on making the content worthwhile, there would be less motivation to copy movies.

The digital format of most films and music released today has led to its increased piracy. The quality of video and audio recordings based in analog technology, such as cassette or VCR tapes, decreases each time an original version is copied.

No, a crappy movie is still a crappy movie, whether it is the first copy or the 1000th copy.

When digital recordings, such as CDs and DVDs, are copied, however, no quality is lost.

You can't lose what you don't have to start with.

The group will also need to develop a system for writing to the tags, a platform for associating DVDs with their purchasers or owners and a means of encrypting the tag data.

Associating a DVD with a particular owner? Right there is baaad news. What is it called, First Sale doctrine or something? I ask because I don't recall the actual name, but you get my point.

Past anti-copy technology has been foiled by simple tricks with markers and clever people cracking weak encryption. I'd bet a dollar or two that this will be no exception.

Note to the **AA: focus more on making the content/experience worth the price of admission/sale/whatever, and people will purchase it. If the public can't enjoy entertainment on their own terms, one of two things will happen:

(1) WE (as in the public) will stop paying for content, or

(2) The aforementioned clever people will break your protection and get the content for free and enjoy it how they wish.

Either way, you lose.

(BTW...the MPAA website is "temporarily unavailable.")

This won't take off...

[dfm3]

I can't see the film industry or consumers going for this. As the article states, this technology would be used to produce DVDs that can be played at home as soon as the movie is released in theaters. Sounds nice, but the MPAA makes money off of movies twice- once when it is released in theaters and again several months later when it is released on DVD. Their hope is that the same person who went out and already paid to see the film on screen will buy a copy once it comes out on disc, effectively paying twice to have access to the same content. One person will chose to watch the movie in the theater, while somebody else might choose to watch it in the comfort of their home at the same time, but very few people will watch it both in the theater and in their home if they have a choice the day the movie is released. This is one reason why movies aren't released on DVD for several months after they hit theaters.

Plus, who in their right mind would buy another DVD player just to play a few heavily DRMmed movies that you can't watch without first connecting to the internet? I'd rather wait a few months and get a copy that I can watch when I want to, without having to rely on an external server (that may not always be available for various reasons) to verify that I own a legal copy of the movie.

DRM underwear?

[No Such Agency]

Fruit-of-the-Loom wants you to buy new underwear, so, they turn off the authentication for your year old undies. Now, your washing machine will not run with these undies present.

A true hacker would take a brute force approach and wash his or her undies by hand.

Re:Pr0n==cheap

[Secret Agent X23]

This is very true. I never understood why, rationally speaking, should a movie star (or a pop singer, a soccer player etc) get such ridiculous money. Is it how much their contribution to society really worth? I very much doubt it.

The real question is, how much is someone's work worth, in purely economic terms, to the person writing the check? If I were a producer and thought that Brad Pitt's name on my movie would be worth an extra $50 million in revenues, I'd be happy to write him a check for $10 million (numbers are pulled out of the air; I don't know what Pitt typically gets paid).

Yes, the $35,000-a-year teachers who teach kids to read are making a far greater contribution to society, but the fact is, their jobs aren't generating any "cash flow."

Potential revenue?

[bezuwork's friend]

The Motion Picture Association of America, a trade group that represents major Hollywood studios, estimates that the U.S. motion picture industry loses more than $3 billion annually in potential worldwide revenue due to piracy.

Scratches head ...

Hey, I can play that game too ...

I lose more than $10K every year in potential revenue just because I didn't get that raise ...
I lose more than $1M every year in potential revenue because I wasn't selected to be CEO for any of several Fortune 500 companies ...
I lose more than $10B every year in potential revenues because BG doen't give me it ...

Re:Pr0n==cheap

[Justin205]

Bad analogy. If you pay that $1000 for the litter, at least the rest of the litter will be cleaned up.

For a movie star, if one gets $0.10, and the other gets $1000, then it's not even split up. The one with $1000 gets the (almost full - minus agents, etc.) $1000, and the one with $0.10 is stuck with $0.10.

Re:Pr0n==cheap

[shutdown -p now]

I'm not sure about the country you live in but in most of the world the amount of money someone gets paid isn't a measure of the worth of their contribution to society

I know; not in capitalist society, at least. And that leads us to the next question...

... nor is it meant to be.

Why not?

Re:Pr0n==cheap

[oldwolf13]

it's a catch-22 system.

If we pay the movie star less, where does the rest go? To the producer? Director? Company? They're not going to do something nice, and responsible and maybe make it so joe sixpack and his family can go see a movie without being gouged.

Personally, I think a lot of those people should be paid less, and let the money trickle down more to the lowest paid. if they're making sufficient funds, then they can maybe do things like make it so I don't have to spend $50 or so to go see a movie with my girl.

This is what gets me with movie stars, singers, HOCKEY PLAYERS... sure they thank their fans.. say they owe it all to them... yet their hands are in our wallets every chance they get.

Out here in Vancouver, Canada, they did some awful things to the projectionists... rolling back wages, lessening the staff... etc. They ended up striking. Now projectionists made GOOD money, so I met a lot of people who thought they were overpaid anyways, so they should just take what they could get... they figured it was such an easy job they shouldn't be paid what they were.

i find this way of thinking to be very similar to brainwashing. Instead of wishing the poor projectionist and his family to be paid less, they should be wishing themselves to be PAID MORE. Why do people always have to drag others down, instead of trying to boost themselves up?

I asked them where the money should go if they succeeded in doing this to the projectists. Back to Sony and their ilk so they can have yet another dump truck full of money sitting around collecting interest?

I'd much rather my money went to some poor joe sixpack with a wife and kids busting his ass to support them, then to some already stinking rich guy.

Re:Pr0n==cheap

[C0vardeAn0nim0]

holywood movies are expensive because theyre adicted to big budgets, actors are adicted to large pays, so they have to spend half the budget of the movie in advertising to make sure enough sreens are showing the movies and that people pay to watch it.

blair witch project was a damn good movie and it was shot with only US$35 thousand and made more than US$200 milion in the box office. OTOH titanic was budgeted in what ? US$ 200 mil ? and made 1 bilion. 5 times the investiment. blair with multiplied the investment by more than 5 THOUSAND times... and blair witch is _good_ movie, titanic is crap...

good movies are not about budget (remember waterworld ?), is about story telling, acting, good and well developed characters. none of these requires a megabucks budget.

ET phone home?

[Nkwe]

From TFA:

In order to authenticate, the player would also need to link to some type of online network

So every time I want to watch a movie my player will phone home and inform someone that I am currently watching a movie?

There will be a record of what and when I watch?

So some time in the future someone else can decide that I don't get to watch the movie I paid for anymore?

If my Internet connection goes down, I can't watch movies instead?

I paid what for these features?