Economist Looks at the Digital Home

spisska writes "There is an excellent article this week in The Economist looking at the "digital home" and at what cable, telecom, internet, and hardware companies are doing to create the new entertainment nerve centers of the future. The article touches on what exists today (CDs, DVDs, etc), what is in production or preparation from various companies (MS MCE, IPTV, music downloads, etc), DRM, interoperability, and competing standards, among other topics. Although there is no mention of MythTV or Linux, it is a pretty solid analysis of the market as it is now and concludes that vendors are trying to hype a market into existence where there is no great consumer demand. A choice quote: "'If consumers even know there's a DRM, what it is, and how it works, we've already failed,' says Peter Lee, an executive at Disney". The article concludes: "As John Barrett, research director at Parks Associates, says, 'it seems that we've concocted a new variant of the 'paperless' office.' This, you recall, was the consensus a decade or so ago among technophiles (but almost nobody else), that computer technology would save our forests by freeing us from having to read and write on paper. Today's variant, says Mr Barrett, is 'no more tapes, CDs, DVDs, discs.' In other words, expect them to be around for a very long time to come.""

Comments

Knowledge of DRM

[kfg]

"'If consumers even know there's a DRM. . . we've already failed,'"

Well Sparky, you kinda let that cat out of the bag when you forced people to watch ten minutes of ads every time they just wanted to watch a DVD, didn'ch'a?

KFG

Re:The big problem with paper

[cpt kangarooski]

You misunderstand Bobbs-Merrill.

In that case, the publisher asserted that their copyright gave them the power to control resale; it did not. As the Court noted, there was no issue of whether there was a contract at work in the case, which might have produced a different result:

The precise question, therefore, in this case is, Does the sole right to vend (named in 4952) secure to the owner of the copyright the right, after a sale of the book to a purchaser, to restrict future sales of the book at retail, to the right to sell it at a certain price per copy, because of a notice in the book that a sale at a different price will be treated as an infringement, which notice has been brought home to one undertaking to sell for less than the named sum? We do not think the statute can be given such a construction, and it is to be remembered that this is purely a question of statutory construction. There is no claim in this case of contract limitation, nor license agreement controlling the subsequent sales of the book.

In our view the copyright statutes, while protecting the owner of the copyright in his right to multiply and sell his production, do not create the right to impose, by notice, such as is disclosed in this case, a limitation at which the book shall be sold at retail by future purchasers, with whom there is no privity of contract.

Where there is a contract -- which is what many courts have been finding in EULA cases -- then limits on first sale and so forth are entirely acceptable. In fact, the seminal EULA case, ProCD, dealt with public domain data, which as it was uncopyrightable, had to be protected by contract or not at all.

EULA cases have nothing to do with machine-readable formats. They're more common in the software industry (despite typically being utterly pointless) more out of historical accident than anything else. But you can use them with paper, or other consumer goods, just as much as you please, as far as the courts seem to be saying lately.

We'd be better off abolishing the practice altogether, however. It's dangerous.